CVE-2026-98289
af_unix: Unify scc_index when finalising SCC in __unix_walk_scc().
No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 6th percentile. Fixed versions are out.
What to do
Find your product and version, then upgrade to the build on the right.
- LinuxAffected: ≥ 4090fa373f0e763c43610853d2774b5979915959, < b8f71d69380a5fbc734c868acbeb560f1de1766fUpgrade to: b8f71d69380a5fbc734c868acbeb560f1de1766fAffected: ≥ 4090fa373f0e763c43610853d2774b5979915959, < be550ee108ad80828aa61280400bedfc7e7c39d3Upgrade to: be550ee108ad80828aa61280400bedfc7e7c39d3Affected: ≥ 4090fa373f0e763c43610853d2774b5979915959, < 4a4263dfeabad72f95e8ab6e15146861fa4144ddUpgrade to: 4a4263dfeabad72f95e8ab6e15146861fa4144ddAffected: 5dfd283f4651d04dbb70ceb9ae5c4a30eda3c52aUpgrade to: not stated + 3 more branchesStated by: CVE record
Versions as the sources state them. Full version matrix after sign-in
What it is
From the CVE record
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Unify scc_index when finalising SCC in __unix_walk_scc(). Commit bfdb01283ee8 ("af_unix: Assign a unique index to SCC.") changed Tarjan's algorithm to update lowlink with lowlink, which is called lowpoint (unix_vertex.scc_index). unix_vertex_dead() assumes all vertices in an SCC share the same lowpoint, but this is not always true if an SCC has two or more back edges, depending on the order of DFS. For example, the graph below has two back edges from B to A and from C to B. A --> B --> C ^ | ^ | `----' `----' If DFS walks through A -> B -> C -> B (-> C -> B) -> A (-> B -> A), each index and scc_index will be updated as follows. A --> B --> C C = (3, 3) (index, scc_index) B = (2, 2) A = (1, 1) A ... B ... C C = (3, 2)<-. ^ | B = (2, 2) -' `----' A = (1, 1) A ... B ... C C = (3, 2) ^ | . . B = (2, 1)<-. `----' .... A = (1, 1) -' Then, unix_vertex_dead() thinks that B is passed to another SCC with scc_index 2, and the SCC is not garbage-collected. This does not happen if DFS walks in a different order below or starts from B. 1 3 A --> B --> C ^ | ^ | `----' `----' 2 4 Let's unify scc_index across the SCC when finalising it. Note that updating v->index was previously done in unix_scc_dead(), when called from __unix_walk_scc(), just to save one loop. Since __unix_walk_scc() now iterates over the SCC anyway, the update is moved back to __unix_walk_scc() and 'fast' argument is dropped.
In plain language
No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.
Exploitation
Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.
- CISA KEV
Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.
- Public exploits
No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.
- EPSS
0.2% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 6th percentile of scored CVEs.
Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.
Lifecycle
2 events over 0 days, from the signal feeds we watch.
- Publishedrecord updated
Affected products
Sources
Watch the software you run.
My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.
We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Linux, not every advisory.
A free account adds
- The full version matrix and every affected product
- Exploit links, proofs of concept and Metasploit modules
- Email alerts for the products you watch
- The same data over REST API, MCP and CLI