{
  "affected": [
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "urgency": "not yet assigned"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Debian:12",
        "name": "linux"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "urgency": "not yet assigned"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Debian:13",
        "name": "linux"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "urgency": "not yet assigned"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Debian:14",
        "name": "linux"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:  batman-adv: bla: fix freeing of claims on meshif deletion  When the mesh interface is getting deleted, then batadv_bla_del_backbone_claims() (via batadv_bla_purge_backbone_gw()) could make sure that all claims gets removed. But this function is only executed when bat_priv-\u003ebla.claim_hash is not NULL. And since batadv_bla_free() is always setting it to NULL before it is (indirectly) called, it was never actually executed.  But the batadv_bla_purge_claims() -\u003e batadv_handle_unclaim() is at the moment too fragile because the BLA code is not handling the rehashing in batadv_bla_update_orig_address(). The stored backbone address doesn't have to be the one actually used for the hash bucket selection during the initial adding of the backbone. The batadv_handle_unclaim() can therefore fail to find the respective backbone for the unclaim and then stop the deletion.  But the actual backbone_gw object is not needed for the unclaim because all relevant information is always provided by the caller. And the check for the existence of the backbone_gw doesn't provide any additional security check for the deletion of a claim.",
  "id": "DEBIAN-CVE-2026-89948",
  "modified": "2026-09-17T04:47:33.446458755Z",
  "published": "2026-09-16T11:17:04.890Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-89948"
    }
  ],
  "upstream": [
    "CVE-2026-89948"
  ]
}