#1125060 llama.cpp: CVE-2026-21869

Package:
src:llama.cpp
Source:
src:llama.cpp
Submitter:
Moritz Mühlenhoff
Date:
2026-05-31 14:15:02 UTC
Severity:
normal
Tags:
#1125060#5
Date:
2026-01-08 20:02:20 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

The following vulnerability was published for llama.cpp.

CVE-2026-21869[0]:
| llama.cpp is an inference of several LLM models in C/C++. In commits
| 55d4206c8 and prior, the n_discard parameter is parsed directly from
| JSON input in the llama.cpp server's completion endpoints without
| validation to ensure it's non-negative. When a negative value is
| supplied and the context fills up, llama_memory_seq_rm/add receives
| a reversed range and negative offset, causing out-of-bounds memory
| writes in the token evaluation loop. This deterministic memory
| corruption can crash the process or enable remote code execution
| (RCE). There is no fix at the time of publication.

https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/security/advisories/GHSA-8947-pfff-2f3c


If you fix the vulnerability please also make sure to include the
CVE (Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures) id in your changelog entry.

For further information see:

[0] https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-21869
https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-21869

Please adjust the affected versions in the BTS as needed.

#1125060#12
Date:
2026-01-09 11:43:20 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

just wanted to confirm that I'm actively monitoring the situation, and
intend to prepare a fix in a timely manner, once it appears upstream.

FWIW, llama.cpp is neither in stable nor in testing, and also blocked
from migration as of right now.

Best,
Christian

#1125060#17
Date:
2026-01-09 13:12:09 UTC
From:
To:

#1125060#28
Date:
2026-04-17 08:38:43 UTC
From:
To:
According to a recent comment in
<URL: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/issues/18717 >, upstream
believe the issue was fixed when
<URL: https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/16818 > was merged,
and should be included since february.

#1125060#33
Date:
2026-04-17 08:55:29 UTC
From:
To:
Looking at the upstream git repository, I suspect it was fixed in
release 6890, tagged b6890 2025-10-30 if I understand the git history
correctly.

#1125060#38
Date:
2026-05-31 13:52:21 UTC
From:
To:
I can confirm that the issue was resolved upstream in version 6890.