CVE-2026-23167
CVE Descriptions
nfc: nci: Fix race between rfkill and nci_unregister_device().
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfc: nci: Fix race between rfkill and nci_unregister_device(). syzbot reported the splat below [0] without a repro. It indicates that struct nci_dev.cmd_wq had been destroyed before nci_close_device() was called via rfkill. nci_dev.cmd_wq is only destroyed in nci_unregister_device(), which (I think) was called from virtual_ncidev_close() when syzbot close()d an fd of virtual_ncidev. The problem is that nci_unregister_device() destroys nci_dev.cmd_wq first and then calls nfc_unregister_device(), which removes the device from rfkill by rfkill_unregister(). So, the device is still visible via rfkill even after nci_dev.cmd_wq is destroyed. Let's unregister the device from rfkill first in nci_unregister_device(). Note that we cannot call nfc_unregister_device() before nci_close_device() because 1) nfc_unregister_device() calls device_del() which frees all memory allocated by devm_kzalloc() and linked to ndev->conn_info_list 2) nci_rx_work() could try to queue nci_conn_info to ndev->conn_info_list which could be leaked Thus, nfc_unregister_device() is split into two functions so we can remove rfkill interfaces only before nci_close_device(). [0]: DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1) WARNING: kernel/locking/lockdep.c:238 at hlock_class kernel/locking/lockdep.c:238 [inline], CPU#0: syz.0.8675/6349 WARNING: kernel/locking/lockdep.c:238 at check_wait_context kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4854 [inline], CPU#0: syz.0.8675/6349 WARNING: kernel/locking/lockdep.c:238 at __lock_acquire+0x39d/0x2cf0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5187, CPU#0: syz.0.8675/6349 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6349 Comm: syz.0.8675 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/13/2026 RIP: 0010:hlock_class kernel/locking/lockdep.c:238 [inline] RIP: 0010:check_wait_context kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4854 [inline] RIP: 0010:__lock_acquire+0x3a4/0x2cf0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5187 Code: 18 00 4c 8b 74 24 08 75 27 90 e8 17 f2 fc 02 85 c0 74 1c 83 3d 50 e0 4e 0e 00 75 13 48 8d 3d 43 f7 51 0e 48 c7 c6 8b 3a de 8d <67> 48 0f b9 3a 90 31 c0 0f b6 98 c4 00 00 00 41 8b 45 20 25 ff 1f RSP: 0018:ffffc9000c767680 EFLAGS: 00010046 RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 0000000000040000 RCX: 0000000000080000 RDX: ffffc90013080000 RSI: ffffffff8dde3a8b RDI: ffffffff8ff24ca0 RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: ffffffff8fef35a3 R09: 1ffffffff1fde6b4 R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: fffffbfff1fde6b5 R12: 00000000000012a2 R13: ffff888030338ba8 R14: ffff888030338000 R15: ffff888030338b30 FS: 00007fa5995f66c0(0000) GS:ffff8881256f8000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f7e72f842d0 CR3: 00000000485a0000 CR4: 00000000003526f0 Call Trace:CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 4.7 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 3.2 To (excluding) 5.10.249
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.199
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.162
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.123
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.69
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.9
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
