CVE-2026-53090
Linux Kernel 5.10 – 7.0.10
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-53090 is a high-severity Incorrect Check of Function Return Value (CWE-253) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38958
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix ld_{abs,ind} failure path analysis in subprogs Usage of ld_{abs,ind} instructions got extended into subprogs some time ago via commit 09b28d76eac4 ("bpf: Add abnormal return checks."). These are only…
more
allowed in subprograms when the latter are BTF annotated and have scalar return types. The code generator in bpf_gen_ld_abs() has an abnormal exit path (r0=0 + exit) from legacy cBPF times. While the enforcement is on scalar return types, the verifier must also simulate the path of abnormal exit if the packet data load via ld_{abs,ind} failed. This is currently not the case. Fix it by having the verifier simulate both success and failure paths, and extend it in similar ways as we do for tail calls. The success path (r0=unknown, continue to next insn) is pushed onto stack for later validation and the r0=0 and return to the caller is done on the fall-through side.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code analysis can discover missing or incorrect return-value checks.
Documented development standards and tools can mandate verified checking of every function return value.
Security engineering principles include requirements for robust error checking of all function returns.
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 enforce proper error-handling and return-value checking during development.
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 catches missing or incorrect return-value checks.
Secure SDLC mandates return-value checks and error handling, directly reducing CWE-253.
Application security requirements include robust error handling that mitigates incorrect return-value checks.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding practices such as validating function results.
Secure coding explicitly demands checking return values, covering most of CWE-253.