GHSA-QQ6G-5658-HPX2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-30 15:30 – Updated: 2025-12-30 15:30In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
soundwire: bus: Fix unbalanced pm_runtime_put() causing usage count underflow
This reverts commit 443a98e649b4 ("soundwire: bus: use pm_runtime_resume_and_get()")
Change calls to pm_runtime_resume_and_get() back to pm_runtime_get_sync(). This fixes a usage count underrun caused by doing a pm_runtime_put() even though pm_runtime_resume_and_get() returned an error.
The three affected functions ignore -EACCES error from trying to get pm_runtime, and carry on, including a put at the end of the function. But pm_runtime_resume_and_get() does not increment the usage count if it returns an error. So in the -EACCES case you must not call pm_runtime_put().
The documentation for pm_runtime_get_sync() says: "Consider using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() ... as this is likely to result in cleaner code."
In this case I don't think it results in cleaner code because the pm_runtime_put() at the end of the function would have to be conditional on the return value from pm_runtime_resume_and_get() at the top of the function.
pm_runtime_get_sync() doesn't have this problem because it always increments the count, so always needs a put. The code can just flow through and do the pm_runtime_put() unconditionally.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-54259"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-30T13:16:14Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nsoundwire: bus: Fix unbalanced pm_runtime_put() causing usage count underflow\n\nThis reverts commit\n443a98e649b4 (\"soundwire: bus: use pm_runtime_resume_and_get()\")\n\nChange calls to pm_runtime_resume_and_get() back to pm_runtime_get_sync().\nThis fixes a usage count underrun caused by doing a pm_runtime_put() even\nthough pm_runtime_resume_and_get() returned an error.\n\nThe three affected functions ignore -EACCES error from trying to get\npm_runtime, and carry on, including a put at the end of the function.\nBut pm_runtime_resume_and_get() does not increment the usage count if it\nreturns an error. So in the -EACCES case you must not call\npm_runtime_put().\n\nThe documentation for pm_runtime_get_sync() says:\n \"Consider using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() ... as this is likely to\n result in cleaner code.\"\n\nIn this case I don\u0027t think it results in cleaner code because the\npm_runtime_put() at the end of the function would have to be conditional on\nthe return value from pm_runtime_resume_and_get() at the top of the\nfunction.\n\npm_runtime_get_sync() doesn\u0027t have this problem because it always\nincrements the count, so always needs a put. The code can just flow through\nand do the pm_runtime_put() unconditionally.",
"id": "GHSA-qq6g-5658-hpx2",
"modified": "2025-12-30T15:30:34Z",
"published": "2025-12-30T15:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-54259"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/203aa4374c433159f163acde2d0bd4118f23bbaf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4e5e9da139c007dfc397a159093b4c4187ee67fa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e9537962519e88969f5f69cd0571eb4f6984403c"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
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.