CVE-2026-53145 : Detail

CVE-2026-53145

7.8
/
Tinggi
2026-06-25
09h16 +00:00
Local
2026-10-19
20h19 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/gem: Try to fix change_handle ioctl, attempt 4 [airlied: just added some comments on how to reenable] On-list because the cat is out of the bag and we're clearly not good enough to figure this out in private. The story thus far: 5e28b7b94408 ("drm: Set old handle to NULL before prime swap in change_handle") tried to fix a race condition between the gem_close and gem_change_handle ioctls, but got a few things wrong: - There's a confusion with the local variable handle, which is actually the new handle, and so the two-stage trick was actually applied to the wrong idr slot. 7164d78559b0 ("drm/gem: fix race between change_handle and handle_delete") tried to fix that by adding yet another code block, but forgot to add the error handling. Which meant we now have two paths, both kinda wrong. - dc366607c41c ("drm: Replace old pointer to new idr") tried to apply another fix, but inconsistently, again because of the handle confusion - this would be the right fix (kinda, somewhat, it's a mess) if we'd do the two-stage approach for the new handle. Except that wasn't the intent of the original fix. We also didn't have an igt merged for the original ioctl, which is a big no-go. This was attempted to address off-list in the original bugfix, and amd QA people claimed the bug was fixed now. Very clearly that's not the case. Here's my attempt to sort this out: - Rename the local variable to new_handle, the old aliasing with args->handle is just too dangerously confusing. - Merge the gem obj lookup with the two-stage idr_replace so that we avoid getting ourselves confused there. - This means we don't have a surplus temporary reference anymore, only an inherited from the idr. A concurrent gem_close on the new_handle could steal that. Fix that with the same two-stage approach create_tail uses. This is a bit overkill as documented in the comment, but I also don't trust my ability to understand this all correctly, so go with the established pattern we have from other ioctls instead for maximum paranoia. - Adjust error paths. I've tried to make the error and success paths common, because they are identical except for which handle is removed and on which we call idr_replace to (re)install the object again. But that made things messier to read, so I've left it at the more verbose version, which unfortunately hides the symmetry in the entire code flow a bit. - While at it, also replace the 7 space indent with 1 tab. And finally, because I flat out don't trust my abilities here at all anymore: - Disable the ioctl until we have the igt situation and everything else sorted out on-list and with full consensus. v2: Sashiko noticed that I didn't handle the error path for idr_replace correctly, it must be checked with IS_ERR_OR_NULL like in gem_handle_delete. So yeah, definitely should just the existing paths 1:1 because this is endless amounts of tricky. Also add the Fixes: line for the original ioctl, I forgot that too.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID Nama Kelemahan Sumber
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.

Metrik

Metrik Skor Tingkat keparahan CVSS Vektor Sumber
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
V3.1 7 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.

0b0ca135-0b70-47e7-9f44-1890c2a1c46c

Produk yang Disebutkan

Konfigurasi 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version Dari (termasuk) 6.18.32 Hingga (tidak termasuk) 6.18.36

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version Dari (termasuk) 7.0.9 Hingga (tidak termasuk) 7.0.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.1

Konfigurasi 0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 7.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 8.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 9.0

Redhat>>Enterprise_linux >> Version 10.0

Referensi