CVE-2026-78116
18h19 +00:00
CVE の説明
Double free of an RTIO submission in the Broadcom AFBR-S50 sensor driver data-evaluation error path
The Broadcom AFBR-S50 time-of-flight sensor driver double-completes an RTIO submission when sensor data evaluation fails. In data_ready_work_handler() (drivers/sensor/broadcom/afbr_s50/afbr_s50.c), a non-STATUS_OK return from Argus_EvaluateData() calls handle_error_on_result(), which finalises the request with rtio_iodev_sqe_err(), but execution then fell through to the tail of the function and finalised the very same struct rtio_iodev_sqe a second time with rtio_iodev_sqe_ok(). Unlike the other error branches in the same function, this one did not return. Both completion helpers reach rtio_executor_done() in subsys/rtio/rtio_executor.c, which returns the submission to the pool via rtio_sqe_pool_free() and, for streaming (multishot) submissions, also releases the RX buffer with rtio_release_buffer(). The second completion therefore reads a freed rtio_iodev_sqe, pushes the same mpsc node onto the submission queue while it is already on the pool free list — splicing the two lists together — and re-submits the freed request so the next measurement is written through an already-released buffer. For one-shot submissions it emits a spurious success completion carrying stale userdata and frees the same pool entry twice. The failure branch is driven by sensor conditions rather than by host software. The vendor API documents statuses such as ERROR_ARGUS_BIAS_VOLTAGE_REINIT and ERROR_ARGUS_LASER_MONITOR_INACTIVE as transient results of harsh ambient light, so a party in front of the optical sensor can provoke the invalid-data condition without any physical contact with the board or any software access; SPI transfer errors reach the same branch. In releases before the payload.Status check was dropped, ordinary sharp distance transitions in the sensor's field of view were sufficient. Impact is corruption of the RTIO submission pool and mempool bookkeeping: aliased submissions, writes through released buffers, and duplicate completions delivered to the application. The attacker does not control the corrupted content, so the practical consequence is memory corruption and loss of availability on devices that instantiate brcm,afbr-s50, rather than directed code execution. Only builds that enable this driver are affected.CVE の情報
関連する弱点
| 弱点名 | 出典 | |
|---|---|---|
| Double Free The product calls free() twice on the same memory address. |
メトリクス
| メトリクス | スコア | 深刻度 | CVSS ベクター | 出典 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.2 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
詳細情報
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. Physical The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief (e.g., evil maid attack1) or persistent. An example of such an attack is a cold boot attack in which an attacker gains access to disk encryption keys after physically accessing the target system. Other examples include peripheral attacks via FireWire/USB Direct Memory Access (DMA). 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. 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. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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. |
