Independent & educational platform Not a government body. No link or affiliation with any government organisation. Made for learning only. Test only systems you own or are authorised to test. Become a Partner or Sponsor → Full disclaimer

CVE-2026-92483

Severity not reported
Data quality: partial. Some fields were not provided by the source.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liveupdate: Remember FLB retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempt…

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liveupdate: Remember FLB retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on an FLB. It does so to avoid multiple retrievals of the same FLB. Multiple retrievals cause problems because once the FLB is retrieved, the serialized data structures are likely freed and the FLB is likely in a very different state from what the code expects. All this works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails, luo_flb_retrieve_one() returns the error immediately, without ever storing anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. If the user attempts to retrieve another file registered with the same FLB, LUO will attempt to call the FLB's retrieve() callback again. The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The FLB is likely in a very different state than what the retrieve logic normally expects (e.g. some KHO pages may have already been restored and freed). There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. This is done by changing the retrieved bool to a retrieve_status integer. A value of 0 means retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a negative value means it failed and the error code is the value. This is similar to commit f85b1c6af5bc ("liveupdate: luo_file: remember retrieve() status") which did the same for LUO files.

CVSS
—
Awaiting analysis by NVD
Timeline (UTC)
Published: 2026-09-17 17:17
Modified: 2026-10-19 09:19
NVD status: Received
Last synced 2 days ago
Verified against the source API 2026-10-27 06:54 UTC
Exploitation
Not listed in CISA KEV (as of last catalog sync)
Absence from KEV does not mean a CVE is not exploited. Exploitation status: unknown (no authoritative evidence in our sources).

Affected products

Not reported by the source (unknown — not "none").

Mitigation & advisories

No vendor advisory or patch reference tagged by NVD. Check the references below.

References

Data sources

NVD CVE API 2.0 — fetched 2026-10-27 06:54 UTC · record ↗

Learn the basics

Understanding CVEs and CVSS Scores