CVE-2026-64214
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc/time: Remove redundant preempt_disable|enable() calls from arch_irq_work_raise()
A kernel panic is observed when handling machine check exceptions from real mode.
BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access on read at 0xc00000006be21300 Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1] MSR: 8000000000001003 <SF,ME,RI,LE> CR: 88222248 XER: 00000005 CFAR: c00000000003ffc4 DAR: c00000006be21300 DSISR: 40000000 IRQMASK: 0 NIP [c000000000029e40] arch_irq_work_raise+0x10/0x70 LR [c00000000003ffc8] machine_check_queue_event+0xa8/0x150 Call Trace: [c0000000179d3c70] [c00000000003ff64] machine_check_queue_event+0x44/0x150 [c0000000179d3d30] [c0000000000084e0] machine_check_early_common+0x1f0/0x2c0
The crash occurs because arch_irq_work_raise() calls preempt_disable() from machine check exception (MCE) handlers running in real mode. In this context, accessing the preempt_count can fault, leading to the panic.
The preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() pair in arch_irq_work_raise() was originally added by commit 0fe1ac48bef0 ("powerpc/perf_event: Fix oops due to perf_event_do_pending call") to avoid races while raising irq work from exception context.
Later, commit 471ba0e686cb ("irq_work: Do not raise an IPI when queueing work on the local CPU") added preemption protection in irq_work_queue() path, while commit 20b876918c06 ("irq_work: Use per cpu atomics instead of regular atomics") added equivalent protection in irq_work_queue_on() before reaching arch_irq_work_raise():
irq_work_queue() / irq_work_queue_on() -> preempt_disable() -> __irq_work_queue_local() -> irq_work_raise() -> arch_irq_work_raise()
As a result, callers other than mce_irq_work_raise() already execute with preemption disabled, making the additional preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() pair in arch_irq_work_raise() redundant.
The arch_irq_work_raise() function executes in NMI context when called from MCE handler. Hence we will not be preempted or scheduled out since we are in NMI context with MSR[EE]=0. Therefore, it is safe to remove the preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() calls from here.
Remove it to avoid accessing preempt_count from real mode context.
[Maddy: Fixed the commit title]
No affected software listed.
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/31467b23823ffec1f6fff407f8e3ca9af8b7491a
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/51860e423592893cd7bfa7287d99a3aff4dc3a9d
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6dcd072a5ae3aed336e4a67a7d4cc5205b240065
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/72d8d1c36452a4d3ee134b1da48de7518c1329f9
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8079acc5ee5235a627e4586d4f42082a9000ea64
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a09d07ac45e283c9861a9ceea06f56d0ba851d22
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.