HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 93099 fsresctrl fix uaf from worker threads when
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Unknown severity · Source severity not reportedCVE-2026-93099

fs/resctrl: Fix UAF from worker threads when domains are removedCVE-2026-93099

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-93099 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in fs/resctrl: Fix UAF from worker threads when domains are removed. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Sep 17, 2026Updated Oct 19, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Sep 17, 2026Material review Oct 19, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Unknown severitySource severity not reported
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
3 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
Linux/Linuxgeneric>=24247aeeabe99eab13b798ccccc2dec066dd6f07 <b86dbfe4583bf134932a6cc45bf25b12c10a0b2f || >=24247aeeabe99eab13b798ccccc2dec066dd6f07 <2566b5cd6a275c124e8f154fef6e815f92ec8d5cb86dbfe4583bf134932a6cc45bf25b12c10a0b2f, 2566b5cd6a275c124e8f154fef6e815f92ec8d5c
Linux/Linuxgeneric4.14Not reported
Linux/Linuxgeneric>=24247aeeabe99eab13b798ccccc2dec066dd6f07 <6a2e023429a41afd0d9dfe74268aa51774a953ff || >=24247aeeabe99eab13b798ccccc2dec066dd6f07 <b86dbfe4583bf134932a6cc45bf25b12c10a0b2f || >=24247aeeabe99eab13b798ccccc2dec066dd6f07 <2566b5cd6a275c124e8f154fef6e815f92ec8d5c6a2e023429a41afd0d9dfe74268aa51774a953ff, b86dbfe4583bf134932a6cc45bf25b12c10a0b2f, 2566b5cd6a275c124e8f154fef6e815f92ec8d5c

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for Linux/Linux, Linux/Linux, Linux/Linux.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update Linux/Linux to b86dbfe4583bf134932a6cc45bf25b12c10a0b2f; Linux/Linux to 6a2e023429a41afd0d9dfe74268aa51774a953ff if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Sep 17, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 19, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Sep 17, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
Upstream source description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/resctrl: Fix UAF from worker threads when domains are removed The mbm_handle_overflow() and cqm_handle_limbo() workers read event counters and may sleep while doing so. They are scheduled via delayed_work embedded in struct rdt_l3_mon_domain. Architecture allocates and frees these domains from CPU hotplug callbacks under cpus_write_lock(), and the workers acquire cpus_read_lock() to keep the domain alive across their access. A use-after-free can occur when a worker is blocked waiting for cpus_read_lock() while the hotplug core holds cpus_write_lock(): the architecture frees the rdt_l3_mon_domain that contains the worker's work_struct. When the worker unblocks, the container_of() it performs on the embedded work pointer dereferences freed memory. Drop cpus_read_lock() from the workers and instead drain pending and in-flight work synchronously before the architecture can free the domain. Since architecture offlines the domain under cpus_write_lock() after it has been unlinked from the RCU list and a grace period has elapsed, no new work can be scheduled. The cancel only needs to wait out existing work. Drop rdtgroup_mutex during CPU offline around cancel_delayed_work_sync() so that a worker waiting on the mutex can complete before re-pinning the work on a different CPU. When offlining a CPU the architecture may iterate over resources in any order. For example, the MBA control domain may be offlined before or after a corresponding L3 monitor domain. Ensure that resctrl fs cancels the workers no matter what order the architecture offlines the domains.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
3 linked sources
Open source record