CVE-2026-23052ftrace: Do not over-allocate ftrace memory
Updated under an hour ago ()
Does this affect you?
It affects Linux. Add what you run to find out whether that includes you.
No exploitation reported and no EPSS estimate yet.
Do this next
Free account, 1 product
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ftrace: Do not over-allocate ftrace memory The pg_remaining calculation in ftrace_process_locs() assumes that ENTRIES_PER_PAGE multiplied by 2^order equals the actual capacity of the allocated page group. However, ENTRIES_PER_PAGE is PAGE_SIZE / ENTRY_SIZE (integer division). When PAGE_SIZE is not a multiple of ENTRY_SIZE (e.g. 4096 / 24 = 170 with remainder 16), high-order allocations (like 256 pages) have significantly more capacity than 256 * 170. This leads to pg_remaining being underestimated, which in turn makes skip (derived from skipped - pg_remaining) larger than expected, causing the WARN(skip != remaining) to trigger. Extra allocated pages for ftrace: 2 with 654 skipped WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:7295 ftrace_process_locs+0x5bf/0x5e0 A similar problem in ftrace_allocate_records() can result in allocating too many pages. This can trigger the second warning in ftrace_process_locs(). Extra allocated pages for ftrace WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/trace/ftrace.c:7276 ftrace_process_locs+0x548/0x580 Use the actual capacity of a page group to determine the number of pages to allocate. Have ftrace_allocate_pages() return the number of allocated pages to avoid having to calculate it. Use the actual page group capacity when validating the number of unused pages due to skipped entries. Drop the definition of ENTRIES_PER_PAGE since it is no longer used.
- CVSS
- Not yet scored
- Weakness (CWE)
- Not given
- Known exploited
- Not in CISA's KEV catalog
- EPSS (exploitation in the next 30 days)
- Not loaded for this CVE
- Assigned by
- Linux
- NVD analysis
- Deferred
- Record last updated
- Jul 4, 2026
- First seen by InfoSec Signals
- Oct 9, 2026
The CVE record on cve.org NVD's entry
The CVE record is authoritative. Products marked “from the name” were identified from the CNA's free-text names, not a CPE, and are matched less certainly. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.