CVE-2026-97944x86/cfi: Fix FineIBT hash offset in cfi_get_func_hash()
- —Not scoredno CVSS score yet
- 0.17%Exploitation in 30 daysEPSS · top 94% of all CVEs
- NoKnown exploitednot in CISA's KEV catalog
- NonePublic exploitsnone known yet
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/cfi: Fix FineIBT hash offset in cfi_get_func_hash() The switch of the FineIBT preamble from "subl $hash, %r10d" to the shorter "subl $hash, %eax" moved the hash immediate from offset 7 to offset 5 of the preamble. fineibt_preamble_hash was updated to match, but the open-coded offset in cfi_get_func_hash() was missed and it still reads the hash at offset 7. cfi_get_func_hash() is used by the BPF JIT to give a struct_ops trampoline the CFI hash of the stub function it stands in for. With FineIBT the trampoline now gets the upper half of the real hash followed by the first two bytes of the next instruction, so the first indirect call from the kernel into a struct_ops program, tcp_init_congestion_control() calling ->init() of a BPF congestion control for example, fails the FineIBT check and the kernel dies with a CFI failure. Move the FineIBT preamble template and its offset defines above cfi_get_func_hash() and use fineibt_preamble_hash there, so every reader of the preamble shares one definition of its layout. The CFI_FINEIBT arm is only built with CONFIG_FINEIBT, the only configuration in which cfi_mode can take that value. cfi_get_func_arity() does not need the same treatment: the __bhi_args call whose displacement it reads still ends at the function address.
Timeline
ID reserved
By Linux
Published
- 24 days later
· 24 days later
Record updated
Changes after publication (a new score, a public exploit, EPSS crossing 1, 10 or 50 %, leaving KEV) are kept since November 2026; earlier ones are not known.
Scores
No CVSS score yet: neither the CNA, CISA nor NVD has scored this CVE. NVD status: Received.
- EPSS (exploitation in 30 days)
- 0.17% · top 94% of all CVEs (14 Nov 2026)
The list uses the assigner's score when there is one, then CISA's, then NVD's: Not scored.
Affected products
- affected 85a2d4a890dce3cfc9c14aa91afc3dd7af8e3bf5 – < cd9b4595d6283f9b8a35d7ae607508de45a351ce
- affected 85a2d4a890dce3cfc9c14aa91afc3dd7af8e3bf5 – < 67cf94c30a8b5ebc839f282f5c5a522b35903524
- affected 85a2d4a890dce3cfc9c14aa91afc3dd7af8e3bf5 – < 5a5d26f2cfe13467166219f6bf58099326912ddb
- affected 6.18
- unaffected < 6.18
- unaffected 6.18.53 – ≤ 6.18.*
- unaffected 7.2.7 – ≤ 7.2.*
- unaffected 7.3 – ≤ *
References
Sources
The same CVE in the primary databases and aggregators, to check against.
- CVE.org record (opens in a new tab)
- CVE List JSON (GitHub) (opens in a new tab)
- NVD (opens in a new tab)
- FIRST EPSS (opens in a new tab)
- EUVD EUVD-2026-86798 (opens in a new tab)
- OSV.dev (opens in a new tab)
- GitHub Advisories (opens in a new tab)
- CIRCL Vulnerability-Lookup (opens in a new tab)
Badge for a README or a ticket
[](https://cveledger.app/cve/CVE-2026-97944)Record last updated .