How should we interpret CVSS severity scores?

CVSS estimates technical severity, but it does not automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, asset criticality, known exploitation, 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.

Vulnerability Database

Q: What is a Vulnerability (CVE) and why does it matter?

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.

Q: What's the difference between a vulnerability, an exploit, and a zero-day?

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. Risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Q: Why do vulnerabilities keep reappearing in our environment?

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.

Q: How do we prioritize remediation without burning out the team?

Use a 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 so remediation is steady, not reactive.

Q: How can SynScan help reduce vulnerability risk over time?

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.

356,159

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-46223 — linux / linux_kernel

Improper Locking

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

cgroup: Defer css percpu_ref kill on rmdir until cgroup is depopulated

A chain of commits going back to v7.0 reworked rmdir to satisfy the controller invariant that a subsystem's ->css_offline() must not run while tasks are still doing kernel-side work in the cgroup.

[1] d245698d727a ("cgroup: Defer task cgroup unlink until after the task is done switching out") [2] a72f73c4dd9b ("cgroup: Don't expose dead tasks in cgroup") [3] 1b164b876c36 ("cgroup: Wait for dying tasks to leave on rmdir") [4] 4c56a8ac6869 ("cgroup: Fix cgroup_drain_dying() testing the wrong condition") [5] 13e786b64bd3 ("cgroup: Increment nr_dying_subsys_* from rmdir context")

[1] moved task cset unlink from do_exit() to finish_task_switch() so a task's cset link drops only after the task has fully stopped scheduling. That made tasks past exit_signals() linger on cset->tasks until their final context switch, which led to a series of problems as what userspace expected to see after rmdir diverged from what the kernel needs to wait for. [2]-[5] tried to bridge that divergence: [2] filtered the exiting tasks from cgroup.procs; [3] had rmdir(2) sleep in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE for them; [4] fixed the wait's condition; [5] made nr_dying_subsys_* visible synchronously.

The cgroup_drain_dying() wait in [3] turned out to be a dead end. When the rmdir caller is also the reaper of a zombie that pins a pidns teardown (e.g. host PID 1 systemd reaping orphan pids that were re-parented to it during the same teardown), rmdir blocks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE waiting for those pids to free, the pids can't free because PID 1 is the reaper and it's stuck in rmdir, and the system A-A deadlocks. No internal lock ordering breaks this; the wait itself is the bug.

The css killing side that drove the original reorder, however, can be made cleanly asynchronous: ->css_offline() is already async, run from css_killed_work_fn() driven by percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm(). The fix is to make that chain start only after all tasks have left the cgroup. rmdir's user-visible side then returns as soon as cgroup.procs and friends are empty, while ->css_offline() still runs only after the cgroup is fully drained.

Verified by the original reproducer (pidns teardown + zombie reaper, runs under vng) which hangs vanilla and succeeds here, and by per-commit deterministic repros for [2], [3], [4], [5] with a boot parameter that widens the post-exit_signals() window so each state is reliably reachable. Some stress tests on top of that.

cgroup_apply_control_disable() has the same shape of pre-existing race: when a controller is disabled via subtree_control, kill_css() ran synchronously while tasks past exit_signals() could still be linked to the cgroup's csets, and ->css_offline() could fire before they drained. This patch preserves the existing synchronous behavior at that call site (kill_css_sync() + kill_css_finish() back-to-back) and a follow-up patch will defer kill_css_finish() there using a per-css trigger.

This seems like the right approach and I don't see problems with it. The changes are somewhat invasive but not excessively so, so backporting to -stable should be okay. If something does turn out to be wrong, the fallback is to revert the entire chain ([1]-[5]) and rework in the development branch instead.

v2: Pin cgrp across the deferred destroy work with explicit cgroup_get()/cgroup_put() around queue_work() and the work_fn. v1 wasn't actually broken (ordered cgroup_offline_wq + queue_work order in cgroup_task_dead() saved it) but the explicit ref removes the dependency on those non-obvious invariants. Also note the pre-existing cgroup_apply_control_disable() race in the description; a follow-up will defer kill_css_finish() there.

Published: May 28, 2026
Updated: Jun 12, 2026
CVE: CVE-2026-46223
Severity: Medium
Exploit:
CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

Severity: Medium
Score: 5.5
AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CWEs:

CWE-667

Affected Software
References

Software	From	Fixed in
linux / linux_kernel	6.19.12	7.0
linux / linux_kernel	7.0.1	7.0.9
linux / linux_kernel	7.0	7.0.x
linux / linux_kernel	7.0-rc7	7.0-rc7.x
linux / linux_kernel	7.1-rc1	7.1-rc1.x
linux / linux_kernel	7.1-rc2	7.1-rc2.x

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

Book a Demo

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Vulnerability (CVE) and why does it matter?

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.