CVE Catalog

CVE-2026-90431

Unknown
Published: Translated: NVD NIST

Summary

In the Linux kernel, the remoteproc subsystem lacked synchronization between rproc_crash_handler_work() and rproc_del(), allowing a driver to be removed while crash-handler work was scheduled or executing, leading to use-after-free. A "deleting" flag and cancellation/synchronization of the work before removal were introduced.

Risk Assessment

This can lead to kernel memory corruption or a system crash during remoteproc driver removal if a crash is reported at that time.

Recommendation

Update the Linux kernel to a version containing the fix that synchronizes rproc_crash_handler_work() with rproc_del() by cancelling the work and using a "deleting" flag.

Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

See all
Original NVD description (English source)

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: remoteproc: Prevent crash handling to race with rproc_del() There's no synchronization between rproc_crash_handler_work() and rproc_del(), as such it's possible for a driver to be removed while crash-handler work is scheduled, or even executing - resulting in use-after-free issues. To avoid this the scheduled work need to be cancelled and synchronized against before the removal proceeds. In order to ensure that this doesn't race with the reporting, and thereby scheduling new work, a "deleting" flag is introduced. This is similar to the RPROC_DELETE state that was introduced to ensure that "start" didn't race with rproc_del(), but the existing mechanism can not be used as it's valid to call rproc_report_crash() in atomic context - and the "state" is protected by a mutex. In the event that work is cancelled the pm_stay_awake() is left unbalanced and need to be unrolled. The blocking and cancelling of crash-handler work prior to the actual rproc_shutdown() call does have the explicit side-effect that crashes resulting from the shutdown process will not enter the crash-handling path, and as such will not generate devcoredumps etc. Due to the existing mutual exclusion between these code paths there's no concrete reduction in functionality, but further work would be needed to handle this case.

Vulnerability data from NVD (NIST) · CISA KEV · EPSS