CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-68258NVD status: Received

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdkfd: Check bounds…

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-68258 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in Linux, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.1 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions dcd8f5e049ff31e73f91fbccd9a9b9d725a2ff3e, 2b817c0dfc653bf33d0e0ab8155ff7807a617487, 1956aa246c65c5895589664ccb37d0710aa8d304 as the first without the flaw, so updating Linux to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.13% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update Linux to dcd8f5e049ff31e73f91fbccd9a9b9d725a2ff3e or 2b817c0dfc653bf33d0e0ab8155ff7807a617487 or 1956aa246c65c5895589664ccb37d0710aa8d304 or fd1691ec62701c982ea32e749678988c67fd4c21, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
LinuxLinux42c6c48214b726c30918e8dc80e2168607d13ae4 up to, but not including, dcd8f5e049ff31e73f91fbccd9a9b9d725a2ff3e; 42c6c48214b726c30918e8dc80e2168607d13ae4 up to, but not including, 2b817c0dfc653bf33d0e0ab8155ff7807a617487; 42c6c48214b726c30918e8dc80e2168607d13ae4 up to, but not including, 1956aa246c65c5895589664ccb37d0710aa8d304; 42c6c48214b726c30918e8dc80e2168607d13ae4 up to, but not including, fd1691ec62701c982ea32e749678988c67fd4c21; 42c6c48214b726c30918e8dc80e2168607d13ae4 up to, but not including, cc10a5839756982504ee8568fc1e1625962ab7f8; 42c6c48214b726c30918e8dc80e2168607d13ae4 up to, but not including, 47ea05f246bebc81c7796f56265cffd812cf0601; 5.18dcd8f5e049ff31e73f91fbccd9a9b9d725a2ff3e, 2b817c0dfc653bf33d0e0ab8155ff7807a617487, 1956aa246c65c5895589664ccb37d0710aa8d304, fd1691ec62701c982ea32e749678988c67fd4c21, cc10a5839756982504ee8568fc1e1625962ab7f8, 47ea05f246bebc81c7796f56265cffd812cf0601

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
LowA basic user account is enough.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
NoneNothing can be modified.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H. Scored by CNA.

Official description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdkfd: Check bounds on CRIU restore queue type and mqd size We weren't checking whether the values provided in the private data in kfd CRIU restore were within bounds. For queue type, add a KFD_QUEUE_TYPE_MAX and ensure the provided type is less than it. For mqd_size, add new function mqd_size_from_queue_type and confirm that the provided mqd_size matches expectations. (cherry picked from commit f19d8086f6644083c913d70bfdeee20e1b6f46a5)

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.