CVE-2026-64235
Is CVE-2026-64235 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/ftrace: Relocate %rip-relative percpu refs in dynamic trampolines With CONFIG_CALL_DEPTH_TRACKING enabled on an x86 retbleed-affected platform (eg: Skylake), with retbleed=stuff, registering a dynamic ftrace trampoline crashes on the first call into the traced function: BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff88817ae18880 #PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode #PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page PGD 4b53067 P4D 4b53067 PUD 0 Oops: Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP PTI CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 187 Comm: usleep Not tainted 7.0.10 #243 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Arch Linux 1.17.0-2-2 04/01/2014 Code: 24 78 00 00 00 00 48 89 ea 48 89 54 24 20 48 8b b4 24 b8 00 00 00 48 8b bc 24 b0 00 00 00 48 89 bc 24 80 00 00 00 48 83 ef 05 <65> 48 c1 3d 1f a8 b6 02 05 48 8b 15 f6 00 00 00 4c 89 3c 24 4c 89 Call Trace: <TASK> ? find_held_lock ? exc_page_fault ? lock_release ? __x64_sys_clock_nanosleep ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare ? trace_hardirqs_on __x64_sys_clock_nanosleep do_syscall_64 ? exc_page_fault ? call_depth_return_thunk entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe ... Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception This small reproducer allows to easily trigger the crash: # echo 'p __x64_sys_clock_nanosleep' > /sys/kernel/tracing/kprobe_events # echo 1 > /sys/kernel/tracing/events/kprobes/p___x64_sys_clock_nanosleep_0/enable # usleep 1 Monitoring the crash under GDB points to the exact instruction in charge of incrementing the call depth: sarq $5, %gs:__x86_call_depth(%rip) This instruction matches the one inserted by the ftrace_regs_caller from ftrace_64.S. This emitted code was likely working fine until the introduction of 59bec00ace28 ("x86/percpu: Introduce %rip-relative addressing to PER_CPU_VAR()"): it has made the call depth accounting addressing relative to $rip, instead of being based on an absolute address. As this code exact location depends on where the trampoline lives in memory, the corresponding displacement needs to be adjusted at runtime to actually correctly find the per-cpu __x86_call_depth value, otherwise the targeted address is wrong, leading to the page fault seen above. Fix the %rip-relative displacement of the copied CALL_DEPTH_ACCOUNT instruction (from ftrace_regs_caller) by calling text_poke_apply_relocation(), as it is done for example by the x86 BPF JIT compiler through x86_call_depth_emit_accounting(). This corrects both CALL_DEPTH_ACCOUNT slots, in ftrace_caller and ftrace_regs_caller. [ bp: Massage. ]
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64235)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64235"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64235/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64235"></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?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
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.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 8.1) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.