CVE-2026-23103: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipvlan: Make the addrslock be per port
Make the addrslock be per port, not per ipvlan dev.
Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So
1) Introduce per-port addrslock.
2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlanopen/ipvlanclose)
This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlanaddaddr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause:
1) False-negative of ipvlanaddrbusy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlanaddr6event() can be called without rtnllock.
2) Race since ipvlanhtaddradd(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrslock locks
This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
Other sources
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipvlan: Make the addrslock be per port
Make the addrslock be per port, not per ipvlan dev.
Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So
1) Introduce per-port addrslock.
2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlanopen/ipvlanclose)
This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlanaddaddr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause:
1) False-negative of ipvlanaddrbusy(): one interface iterated through all port-ipvlans + ipvlan-addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlanaddr6event() can be called without rtnllock.
2) Race since ipvlanhtaddradd(port) is called under different ipvlan-addrslock locks
This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
— IBM
Affected Software
Remediation
Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.
- Upgrade
Upgrade
debian/linuxto a version that resolves this vulnerability.Fixed in 6.1.176-1Fixed in 6.1.190-1Fixed in 6.12.107-1Fixed in 6.12.113-1Fixed in 7.2.12-1Fixed in 7.2.14-1 - Configuration
Change ipvlan addrs_lock from per ipvlan device to per port, and use the per-port lock when updating or checking addresses, including in ipvlan_open and ipvlan_close.
Linux kernel ipvlan addrs_lock = per port
Event History
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the severity of CVE-2026-23103?
CVE-2026-23103 is considered a low-severity vulnerability in the Linux kernel.
How do I fix CVE-2026-23103?
You can fix CVE-2026-23103 by applying the latest security patches from the Linux kernel maintainers.
What components are affected by CVE-2026-23103?
CVE-2026-23103 affects the ipvlan networking component of the Linux kernel.
What does CVE-2026-23103 involve?
CVE-2026-23103 involves a change that makes the addrs_lock mechanism specific to each port rather than per ipvlan device.
Is CVE-2026-23103 currently being exploited?
As of now, there are no known active exploits for CVE-2026-23103.