FKIE_CVE-2026-78116

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-10-21 19:17 - Updated: 2026-10-23 22:17
Severity
5.2 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Summary
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.
References
vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.orghttps://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/817e92c5184c0d64b8cc6537f4e42ce1e5b635f9
vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.orghttps://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-559f-34rc-pgw2
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr",
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "packageName": "zephyr",
          "product": "zephyr",
          "programFiles": [
            "drivers/sensor/broadcom/afbr_s50/afbr_s50.c"
          ],
          "programRoutines": [
            {
              "name": "data_ready_work_handler"
            }
          ],
          "vendor": "zephyrproject",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "4.5.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "4.3.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "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.\n\nBoth 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 \u2014 splicing the two lists together \u2014 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.\n\nThe 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\u0027s field of view were sufficient.\n\nImpact 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."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-78116",
  "lastModified": "2026-10-23T22:17:00.220",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "PHYSICAL",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 5.2,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 0.9,
        "impactScore": 4.2,
        "source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-78116",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-10-23T20:42:45.739972Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-10-21T19:17:03.517",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commit/817e92c5184c0d64b8cc6537f4e42ce1e5b635f9"
    },
    {
      "source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
      "url": "https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-559f-34rc-pgw2"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-415"
        }
      ],
      "source": "vulnerabilities@zephyrproject.org",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.