CVE-2026-23052
Description
From CVE.org
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ftrace: Do not over-allocate ftrace memory The pg_remaining calculation in ftrace_process_locs() assumes that ENTRIES_PER_PAGE multiplied by 2^order equals the actual capacity of the allocated page group. However, ENTRIES_PER_PAGE is PAGE_SIZE / ENTRY_SIZE (integer division). When PAGE_SIZE is not a multiple of ENTRY_SIZE (e.g. 4096 / 24 = 170 with remainder 16), high-order allocations (like 256 pages) have significantly more capacity than 256 * 170. This leads to pg_remaining being underestimated, which in turn makes skip (derived from skipped - pg_remaining) larger than expected, causing the WARN(skip != remaining) to trigger. Extra allocated pages for ftrace: 2 with 654 skipped WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:7295 ftrace_process_locs+0x5bf/0x5e0 A similar problem in ftrace_allocate_records() can result in allocating too many pages. This can trigger the second warning in ftrace_process_locs(). Extra allocated pages for ftrace WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:7276 ftrace_process_locs+0x548/0x580 Use the actual capacity of a page group to determine the number of pages to allocate. Have ftrace_allocate_pages() return the number of allocated pages to avoid having to calculate it. Use the actual page group capacity when validating the number of unused pages due to skipped entries. Drop the definition of ENTRIES_PER_PAGE since it is no longer used.
Statement
ftrace page group capacity was miscalculated because ENTRIES_PER_PAGE used integer division of PAGE_SIZE by ENTRY_SIZE which underestimates the true capacity when PAGE_SIZE is not a multiple of ENTRY_SIZE. With higher order allocations this makes pg_remaining too small and inflates the computed skip value which can trigger WARN conditions in ftrace_process_locs. The same logic can also lead to allocating more pages than necessary for ftrace records which wastes memory and may contribute to resource pressure. For the CVSS the PR is L in the paranoid score because some systems allow non root tracing in containers or expose tracing controls to service accounts. In typical production systems PR is H because enabling and configuring ftrace generally requires administrative privileges. The issue is not network reachable. Impact is primarily availability through memory waste and potential instability from repeated warnings.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 5.5 | N/A | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Local | N/A | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | N/A |
| Privileges Required | Low | N/A | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | N/A |
| Confidentiality | None | N/A | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | None | N/A | N/A |
| Availability Impact | High | N/A | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory); DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)
If an attacker can trigger the allocation of the limited resources, but the number or size of the resources is not controlled, then the most common result is denial of service. This would prevent valid users from accessing the product, and it could potentially have an impact on the surrounding environment, i.e., the product may slow down, crash due to unhandled errors, or lock out legitimate users. For example, a memory exhaustion attack against an application could slow down the application as well as its host operating system.
Access Control,Other
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism; Other
In some cases it may be possible to force the product to "fail open" in the event of resource exhaustion. The state of the product -- and possibly the security functionality - may then be compromised.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
