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-2026-98289

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Unify scc_index when finalising SCC in __unix_walk_scc().

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.

CVSS
—
Awaiting analysis by NVD
Timeline (UTC)
Published: 2026-10-06 09:18
Modified: 2026-10-19 10:18
NVD status: Received
Last synced 2 days ago
Verified against the source API 2026-10-27 06:57 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 06:57 UTC · record ↗

Learn the basics

Understanding CVEs and CVSS Scores