Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-45990 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-32286
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: slub: fix data loss and overflow in krealloc() Commit 2cd8231796b5 ("mm/slub: allow to set node and align in k[v]realloc") introduced the ability to force a reallocation if the original object…
more
does not satisfy new alignment or NUMA node, even when the object is being shrunk. This introduced two bugs in the reallocation fallback path: 1. Data loss during NUMA migration: The jump to 'alloc_new' happens before 'ks' and 'orig_size' are initialized. As a result, the memcpy() in the 'alloc_new' block would copy 0 bytes into the new allocation. 2. Buffer overflow during shrinking: When shrinking an object while forcing a new alignment, 'new_size' is smaller than the old size. However, the memcpy() used the old size ('orig_size ?: ks'), leading to an out-of-bounds write. The same overflow bug exists in the kvrealloc() fallback path, where the old bucket size ksize(p) is copied into the new buffer without being bounded by the new size. A simple reproducer: // e.g. add to lkdtm as KREALLOC_SHRINK_OVERFLOW while (1) { void *p = kmalloc(128, GFP_KERNEL); p = krealloc_node_align(p, 64, 256, GFP_KERNEL, NUMA_NO_NODE); kfree(p); } demonstrates the issue: ================================================================== BUG: KFENCE: out-of-bounds write in memcpy_orig+0x68/0x130 Out-of-bounds write at 0xffff8883ad757038 (120B right of kfence-#47): memcpy_orig+0x68/0x130 krealloc_node_align_noprof+0x1c8/0x340 lkdtm_KREALLOC_SHRINK_OVERFLOW+0x8c/0xc0 [lkdtm] lkdtm_do_action+0x3a/0x60 [lkdtm] ... kfence-#47: 0xffff8883ad756fc0-0xffff8883ad756fff, size=64, cache=kmalloc-64 allocated by task 316 on cpu 7 at 97.680481s (0.021813s ago): krealloc_node_align_noprof+0x19c/0x340 lkdtm_KREALLOC_SHRINK_OVERFLOW+0x8c/0xc0 [lkdtm] lkdtm_do_action+0x3a/0x60 [lkdtm] ... ================================================================== Fix it by moving the old size calculation to the top of __do_krealloc() and bounding all copy lengths by the new allocation size.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.