CVE-2026-53331 Affecting kernel-kvmsmall package, versions <6.12.0-160000.37.1
Threat Intelligence
The probability is the direct output of the EPSS model, and conveys an overall sense of the threat of exploitation in the wild. The percentile measures the EPSS probability relative to all known EPSS scores. Note: This data is updated daily, relying on the latest available EPSS model version. Check out the EPSS documentation for more details.
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-SLES1600-KERNELKVMSMALL-19331675
- published27 Aug 2026
- disclosed11 Aug 2026
Introduced: 11 Aug 2026
NewCVE-2026-53331 (opens in a new tab)How to fix?
Upgrade SLES:16.0.0 kernel-kvmsmall to version 6.12.0-160000.37.1 or higher.
NVD Description
Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-kvmsmall package and not the kernel-kvmsmall package as distributed by SLES.
See How to fix? for SLES:16.0.0 relevant fixed versions and status.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl->lock
During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.
But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e. slim_controller then tx_lock).
The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:
rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock: ffff00009793e620 (&ctrl->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus
but task is already holding lock: ffff00009793fb50 (&ctrl->tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl
which lock already depends on the new lock.
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock); lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock);
The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction. But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().
Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn down, all child devices are notified that the slimbus is gone and the child devices are removed.
Stop taking the tx_lock in qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify() to avoid the deadlock.
References
- https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-53331.html
- https://bugzilla.suse.com/1270113
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3d1561537237c6cc1db76155183d8bbdac2339f0
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/55f2ea9ff83cc27a85526b14bc9b32f96a08d6ec
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9708eb50fd7343145b422be852f890212155d845
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9f0d45d509b434c54da10e01f4ef8086e4583401
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/aad4337a21b9ad3ae8d668fa8678d05e26ecbaa8
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d54a221b0f3cd9e1f03f18104be34e02a8258fae
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dc4d5c57e012c2c669793deb1515a57bbc6bf5dd