CVE-2026-46316
Linux Kernel 6.10 – 6.12.93
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-46316 is a critical-severity Improper Update of Reference Count (CWE-911) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 9.3 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 37th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-35405
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: arm64: vgic-its: Drop the translation cache reference only for the erased entry vgic_its_invalidate_cache() walks the per-ITS translation cache with xa_for_each() and drops the cache's reference on each entry with…
more
vgic_put_irq(). It puts the iterated pointer, though, rather than the value returned by xa_erase(). The function is called from contexts that do not exclude one another: the ITS command handlers hold its_lock, the GITS_CTLR write path holds cmd_lock, and the path that clears EnableLPIs in a redistributor's GICR_CTLR holds neither. Two or more of them can drain the same cache concurrently, and if each one observes the same entry, erases it and then puts it, the single reference the cache holds on that entry is dropped more than once. The entry can then be freed while an ITE still maps it. xa_erase() is atomic and returns the previous entry, so put only the entry that this context actually removed. The cache reference is then dropped exactly once per entry even when the invalidations run concurrently, and the behavior is unchanged when only one context runs.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis directly exercise reference-counted paths and reveal incorrect updates.
Documented development standards and tools can mandate safe reference-count patterns and static checks.
Engineering principles can require correct resource lifetime and reference management during design and implementation.
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 prevent reference-count coding errors via reviews, static analysis, and testing.
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 reference-count defects before release, providing partial mitigation.
Secure development lifecycle practices can include reference-counting rules and automated checks that reduce the likelihood of improper updates.
Application security requirements can mandate correct resource-lifetime management, indirectly addressing reference-count errors.
Secure system architecture principles encourage explicit resource-ownership models that mitigate reference-count misuse.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe correct increment/decrement patterns, covering most instances of this weakness.
Change-management processes may catch reference-count issues introduced by modifications, but do not address the root coding flaw.