CVE-2026-43073 — linux / linux_kernel
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86-64: rename misleadingly named '__copy_user_nocache()' function
This function was a masterclass in bad naming, for various historical reasons.
It claimed to be a non-cached user copy. It is literally neither of those things. It's a specialty memory copy routine that uses non-temporal stores for the destination (but not the source), and that does exception handling for both source and destination accesses.
Also note that while it works for unaligned targets, any unaligned parts (whether at beginning or end) will not use non-temporal stores, since only words and quadwords can be non-temporal on x86.
The exception handling means that it can be used for user space accesses, but not on its own - it needs all the normal "start user space access" logic around it.
But typically the user space access would be the source, not the non-temporal destination. That was the original intention of this, where the destination was some fragile persistent memory target that needed non-temporal stores in order to catch machine check exceptions synchronously and deal with them gracefully.
Thus that non-descriptive name: one use case was to copy from user space into a non-cached kernel buffer. However, the existing users are a mix of that intended use-case, and a couple of random drivers that just did this as a performance tweak.
Some of those random drivers then actively misused the user copying version (with STAC/CLAC and all) to do kernel copies without ever even caring about the exception handling, just for the non-temporal destination.
Rename it as a first small step to actually make it halfway sane, and change the prototype to be more normal: it doesn't take a user pointer unless the caller has done the proper conversion, and the argument size is the full size_t (it still won't actually copy more than 4GB in one go, but there's also no reason to silently truncate the size argument in the caller).
Finally, use this now sanely named function in the NTB code, which mis-used a user copy version (with STAC/CLAC and all) of this interface despite it not actually being a user copy at all.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 4.2.1 | 6.12.83 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.24 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.14 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0 | 7.0.1 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 4.2 | 4.2.x |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/14b9194db4a28421a4dbe5d6e519efbaa7c5f3cd
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c6d4e0599e7e73abc04e2488dfeb7940c4039660
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d187a86de793f84766ea40b9ade7ac60aabbb4fe
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d993e1723aa2a085aa0d72e70ea889031fc225b4
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/efea91ad1729ff1853d7418e4d3bc27d085e72d0
- https://project-zero.issues.chromium.org/issues/496923375
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.