Skip to content

CVE-2026-46316

is CVE-2026-46316real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
9.3 Critical
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-911
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: arm64: vgic-its: Drop the translation cache reference only for the erased entry vgic_its_invalidate_cache() walks the per-ITS translation cache with xa_for_each() and drops the cache's reference on each entry with vgic_put_irq(). It puts the iterated pointer, though, rather than the value returned by xa_erase(). The function is called from contexts that do not exclude one another: the ITS command handlers hold its_lock, the GITS_CTLR write path holds cmd_lock, and the path that clears EnableLPIs in a redistributor's GICR_CTLR holds neither. Two or more of them can drain the same cache concurrently, and if each one observes the same entry, erases it and then puts it, the single reference the cache holds on that entry is dropped more than once. The entry can then be freed while an ITE still maps it. xa_erase() is atomic and returns the previous entry, so put only the entry that this context actually removed. The cache reference is then dropped exactly once per entry even when the invalidations run concurrently, and the behavior is unchanged when only one context runs.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46316
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46316/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46316)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46316"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-46316/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-46316"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

0 verdicts
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-911.