Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2026-43203: Linux kernel · Use After Free

Source GCVE Database

0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 00:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score
7.5High
How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 6 May 2026

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponised: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq Mirage: no evidence on record.

    No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet(). One of the race conditions can occur as follows: CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (tasklet) fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt() fore200e_shutdown() | tasklet_schedule() kfree(fore200e) | fore200e_tx_tasklet() | fore200e-> // UAF Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers, the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally, it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure. This bug was identified through static analysis.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…