Skip to main content
← Vulnerabilities

io_uring/poll: avoid retry wakeup loss when dropping ownership

Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.

—Not rated
Exploited
No known exploitation
Fix
Fixed in 5.16, 6.1
Who is exposed
Not reported

Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 5.16, 6.1.

20Pcve.now Index 20 of 100 · methodology v3 · provisional
  • Exploitation?/40Exploitation: unknown (data gap). No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
  • Exposure?/25Exposure: unknown (data gap). No advisory context yet
  • Reach20/20Affects Linux kernel (software on nearly every server, desktop or phone)
  • Severity?/10Severity: unknown (data gap). No CVSS score or vendor rating
  • No patch0/5No signal

What would change the score

  • Would score about 75 if added to CISA KEV
  • Would score about 70 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
  • Would score about 42 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed

CVE-2026-99263 is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. No public exploit code is tracked. It affects Linux; fixed in 5.16 and 6.1.

Published
Last modified
Published
Not listed in CISA KEV
20/100 · provisional
Fix
Fixed in 5.16, 6.1
None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub

Summary

The vulnerability affects the Linux kernel's io_uring asynchronous I/O subsystem, specifically its poll handling. Under certain timing conditions, a wakeup can be lost during retry processing, causing requests to stall until an unrelated event occurs.

Read the original description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring/poll: avoid retry wakeup loss when dropping ownership If a wakeup sets IO_POLL_RETRY_FLAG between the owning task consuming the existing instance of IO_POLL_RETRY_FLAG and the loop check of io_poll_check_events(), then we stall on processing the request until an unrelated wakeup comes along. Using atomic_cmpxchg instead of atomic_sub_return to guarantee both the count v and poll_refs are 0 and no wake-ups are missed.

What to do

  • Upgrade to a fixed version: 5.16, 6.1.

Timeline

  1. CVE published
  2. First seen by cve.now
  3. Record last updated

Affected versions

  • Linux Linux

    From 5.15.82 · fixed in 5.16; From 6.0.11 · fixed in 6.1

  • Linux Linux

    6.1

Evidence 7

  1. Link
  2. Link
  3. Link
  4. Link
  5. Link
Show all 7 sourcesShow fewer sources
  1. Link
  2. Link

Corrections

None so far.

Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.

FAQ

Questions about CVE-2026-99263

Is CVE-2026-99263 being exploited?

It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data

Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-99263?

Linux: from 5.15.82 before 5.16; from 6.0.11 before 6.1. Linux: version 6.1.Source: cve.now feed data

How do I fix CVE-2026-99263?

Upgrade to a fixed version: 5.16, 6.1.Source: cve.now feed data