UBUNTU-CVE-2026-90431 (CVE-2026-90431)

Vulnerability from osv_ubuntu – Published: 2026-09-17 17:17 – Updated: 2026-11-13 17:57 – Source website
VLAI
Details

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.

Severity
N/A (UNKNOWN)
low
References
To clipboard 

Loading 1.0 MB of JSON…



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
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

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.