Homepage

CVE-2026-90431 Affecting linux-6.12 package, versions <6.12.111-1~deb12u1

Severity

 Recommended
low

Based on default assessment until relevant scores are available.

Threat Intelligence

EPSS
0.22% (12th percentile)

Do your applications use this vulnerable package?

In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.

Test your applications
  • Snyk IDSNYK-DEBIAN12-LINUX612-20507293
  • published5 Oct 2026
  • disclosed17 Sept 2026
Report a new vulnerability Found a mistake?

Introduced: 17 Sep 2026

NewCVE-2026-90431  (opens in a new tab)

How to fix?

Upgrade Debian:12 linux-6.12 to version 6.12.111-1~deb12u1 or higher.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream linux-6.12 package and not the linux-6.12 package as distributed by Debian. See How to fix? for Debian:12 relevant fixed versions and status.

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.