CVE-2026-53078

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Fix same-register dst/src OOB read and pointer leak in sock_ops

When a BPF sock_ops program accesses ctx fields with dst_reg == src_reg, the SOCK_OPS_GET_SK() and SOCK_OPS_GET_FIELD() macros fail to zero the destination register in the !fullsock / !locked_tcp_sock path.

Both macros borrow a temporary register to check is_fullsock / is_locked_tcp_sock when dst_reg == src_reg, because dst_reg holds the ctx pointer. When the check is false (e.g., TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV state with a request_sock), dst_reg should be zeroed but is not, leaving the stale ctx pointer:

• SOCK_OPS_GET_SK: dst_reg retains the ctx pointer, passes NULL checks as PTR_TO_SOCKET_OR_NULL, and can be used as a bogus socket pointer, leading to stack-out-of-bounds access in helpers like bpf_skc_to_tcp6_sock().

• SOCK_OPS_GET_FIELD: dst_reg retains the ctx pointer which the verifier believes is a SCALAR_VALUE, leaking a kernel pointer.

Fix both macros by:

• Changing JMP_A(1) to JMP_A(2) in the fullsock path to skip the added instruction.
• Adding BPF_MOV64_IMM(si->dst_reg, 0) after the temp register restore in the !fullsock path, placed after the restore because dst_reg == src_reg means we need src_reg intact to read ctx->temp.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/10f86a2a5c91fc4c4d001960f1c21abe52545ef6
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/18e3ffde1822f0b48b1753bf34aa97ce839df1d8
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22400725de070b787cd6d806c5795370ab46d269
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2a2c98141e0a75f2d4a7d78b0316c88b3da784ac