CVE-2026-23469 : Detail

CVE-2026-23469

4.7
/
Medium
0.01%V4
Local
2026-04-03
16h16 +00:00
2026-07-24
22h10 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/imagination: Synchronize interrupts before suspending the GPU The runtime PM suspend callback doesn't know whether the IRQ handler is in progress on a different CPU core and doesn't wait for it to finish. Depending on timing, the IRQ handler could be running while the GPU is suspended, leading to kernel crashes when trying to access GPU registers. See example signature below. In a power off sequence initiated by the runtime PM suspend callback, wait for any IRQ handlers in progress on other CPU cores to finish, by calling synchronize_irq(). At the same time, remove the runtime PM resume/put calls in the threaded IRQ handler. On top of not being the right approach to begin with, and being at the wrong place as they should have wrapped all GPU register accesses, the driver would hit a deadlock between synchronize_irq() being called from a runtime PM suspend callback, holding the device power lock, and the resume callback requiring the same. Example crash signature on a TI AM68 SK platform: [ 337.241218] SError Interrupt on CPU0, code 0x00000000bf000000 -- SError [ 337.241239] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 112 Comm: irq/234-gpu Tainted: G M 6.17.7-B2C-00005-g9c7bbe4ea16c #2 PREEMPT [ 337.241246] Tainted: [M]=MACHINE_CHECK [ 337.241249] Hardware name: Texas Instruments AM68 SK (DT) [ 337.241252] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 337.241256] pc : pvr_riscv_irq_pending+0xc/0x24 [ 337.241277] lr : pvr_device_irq_thread_handler+0x64/0x310 [ 337.241282] sp : ffff800085b0bd30 [ 337.241284] x29: ffff800085b0bd50 x28: ffff0008070d9eab x27: ffff800083a5ce10 [ 337.241291] x26: ffff000806e48f80 x25: ffff0008070d9eac x24: 0000000000000000 [ 337.241296] x23: ffff0008068e9bf0 x22: ffff0008068e9bd0 x21: ffff800085b0bd30 [ 337.241301] x20: ffff0008070d9e00 x19: ffff0008068e9000 x18: 0000000000000001 [ 337.241305] x17: 637365645f656c70 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffff000b7df9ff40 [ 337.241310] x14: 0000a585fe3c0d0e x13: 000000999704f060 x12: 000000000002771a [ 337.241314] x11: 00000000000000c0 x10: 0000000000000af0 x9 : ffff800085b0bd00 [ 337.241318] x8 : ffff0008071175d0 x7 : 000000000000b955 x6 : 0000000000000003 [ 337.241323] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000002 x3 : 0000000000000000 [ 337.241327] x2 : ffff800080e39d20 x1 : ffff800080e3fc48 x0 : 0000000000000000 [ 337.241333] Kernel panic - not syncing: Asynchronous SError Interrupt [ 337.241337] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 112 Comm: irq/234-gpu Tainted: G M 6.17.7-B2C-00005-g9c7bbe4ea16c #2 PREEMPT [ 337.241342] Tainted: [M]=MACHINE_CHECK [ 337.241343] Hardware name: Texas Instruments AM68 SK (DT) [ 337.241345] Call trace: [ 337.241348] show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) [ 337.241357] dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x80 [ 337.241364] dump_stack+0x18/0x24 [ 337.241368] vpanic+0x124/0x2ec [ 337.241373] abort+0x0/0x4 [ 337.241377] add_taint+0x0/0xbc [ 337.241384] arm64_serror_panic+0x70/0x80 [ 337.241389] do_serror+0x3c/0x74 [ 337.241392] el1h_64_error_handler+0x30/0x48 [ 337.241400] el1h_64_error+0x6c/0x70 [ 337.241404] pvr_riscv_irq_pending+0xc/0x24 (P) [ 337.241410] irq_thread_fn+0x2c/0xb0 [ 337.241416] irq_thread+0x170/0x334 [ 337.241421] kthread+0x12c/0x210 [ 337.241428] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 [ 337.241434] SMP: stopping secondary CPUs [ 337.241451] Kernel Offset: disabled [ 337.241453] CPU features: 0x040000,02002800,20002001,0400421b [ 337.241456] Memory Limit: none [ 337.457921] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Asynchronous SError Interrupt ]---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-362 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

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

These 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 is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.8 To (excluding) 6.18.20

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.19 To (excluding) 6.19.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

References