Vulnerability Database

401,687

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-46295 — linux / linux_kernel

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

KVM: x86: Do IRR scan in __kvm_apic_update_irr even if PIR is empty

Fall back to apic_find_highest_vector() when PID.ON is set but PIR turns out to be empty, to correctly report the highest pending interrupt from the existing IRR.

In a nested VM stress test, the following WARNING fires in vmx_check_nested_events() when kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() reports a pending interrupt but the subsequent kvm_apic_has_interrupt() (which invokes vmx_sync_pir_to_irr() again) returns -1:

WARNING: CPU: 99 PID: 57767 at arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c:4449 vmx_check_nested_events+0x6bf/0x6e0 [kvm_intel] Call Trace: kvm_check_and_inject_events vcpu_enter_guest.constprop.0 vcpu_run kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run kvm_vcpu_ioctl __x64_sys_ioctl do_syscall_64 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe

The root cause is a race between vmx_sync_pir_to_irr() on the target vCPU and __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt() on a sender vCPU. The sender performs two individually-atomic operations that are not a single transaction:

  1. pi_test_and_set_pir(vector) -- sets the PIR bit
  2. pi_test_and_set_on() -- sets PID.ON

The following interleaving triggers the bug:

Sender vCPU (IPI): Target vCPU (1st sync_pir_to_irr): B1: set PIR[vector] A1: pi_clear_on() A2: pi_harvest_pir() -> sees B1 bit A3: xchg() -> consumes bit, PIR=0 (1st sync returns correct max_irr) B2: set PID.ON = 1

Target vCPU (2nd sync_pir_to_irr): C1: pi_test_on() -> TRUE (from B2) C2: pi_clear_on() -> ON=0 C3: pi_harvest_pir() -> PIR empty C4: *max_irr = -1, early return IRR NOT SCANNED

The interrupt is not lost (it resides in the IRR from the first sync and is recovered on the next vcpu_enter_guest() iteration), but the incorrect max_irr causes a spurious WARNING and a wasted L2 VM-Enter/VM-Exit cycle.

  • Published: Jun 8, 2026
  • Updated: Oct 17, 2026
  • CVE: CVE-2026-46295
  • 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

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Is CVE-2026-46295 exposed on your perimeter?

A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.

What is attack surface management? →

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.