CVE-2026-98094

Published Sep 25, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: staging: fbtft: make dirty_lock IRQ-safe fbtft_mkdirty() can be reached from the fbcon rendering path while processing printk() in hardirq context. Meanwhile, dirty_lock is also taken by fbtft_deferred_io() in workqueue context with local interrupts enabled. Lockdep reports a possible IRQ lock inversion involving dirty_lock and console_owner. A hardirq can interrupt a CPU holding dirty_lock and enter the console rendering path, which can attempt to acquire dirty_lock again. The following lockdep report was observed on an RK3566 system with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled: WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected swapper/2/0 just changed the state of lock: (console_owner){-...}-{0:0} but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past: (&par->dirty_lock){+.+.}-{2:2} CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&par->dirty_lock); local_irq_disable(); lock(console_owner); lock(&par->dirty_lock); <Interrupt> lock(console_owner); *** DEADLOCK *** Use spin_lock_irqsave() for fbtft_mkdirty() and spin_lock_irq() for fbtft_deferred_io(). They only access the dirty line range, so the IRQ-off regions remain short.

Is your site exposed to CVE-2026-98094?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-98094? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: staging: fbtft: make dirty_lock IRQ-safe fbtft_mkdirty() can be reached from the fbcon rendering path while processing printk() in hardirq context. Meanwhile, dirty_lock is also taken by fbtft_deferred_io() in workqueue context with local interrupts enabled. Lockdep reports a possible IRQ lock inversion involving dirty_lock and console_owner. A hardirq can interrupt a CPU holding dirty_lock and enter the console rendering path, which can attempt to acquire dirty_lock again. The following lockdep report was observed on an RK3566 system with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled: WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected swapper/2/0 just changed the state of lock: (console_owner){-...}-{0:0} but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past: (&par->dirty_lock){+.+.}-{2:2} CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&par->dirty_lock); local_irq_disable(); lock(console_owner); lock(&par->dirty_lock); <Interrupt> lock(console_owner); *** DEADLOCK *** Use spin_lock_irqsave() for fbtft_mkdirty() and spin_lock_irq() for fbtft_deferred_io(). They only access the dirty line range, so the IRQ-off regions remain short.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-98094? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2026-98094 — free, no signup required.