IT

Tracker / CVE-2026-31769

CVE-2026-31769

High 7.8

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: gpib: fix use-after-free in IO ioctl handlers The IBRD, IBWRT, IBCMD, and IBWAIT ioctl handlers use a gpib_descriptor pointer after board->big_gpib_mutex has been released. A concurrent IBCLOSEDEV ioctl can free the descriptor via close_dev_ioctl() during this window, causing a use-after-free. The IO handlers (read_ioctl, write_ioctl, command_ioctl) explicitly release big_gpib_mutex before calling their handler. wait_ioctl() is called with big_gpib_mutex held, but ibwait() releases it internally when wait_mask is non-zero. In all four cases, the descriptor pointer obtained from handle_to_descriptor() becomes unprotected. Fix this by introducing a kernel-only descriptor_busy reference count in struct gpib_descriptor. Each handler atomically increments descriptor_busy under file_priv->descriptors_mutex before releasing the lock, and decrements it when done. close_dev_ioctl() checks descriptor_busy under the same lock and rejects the close with -EBUSY if the count is non-zero. A reference count rather than a simple flag is necessary because multiple handlers can operate on the same descriptor concurrently (e.g. IBRD and IBWAIT on the same handle from different threads). A separate counter is needed because io_in_progress can be cleared from unprivileged userspace via the IBWAIT ioctl (through general_ibstatus() with set_mask containing CMPL), which would allow an attacker to bypass a check based solely on io_in_progress. The new descriptor_busy counter is only modified by the kernel IO paths. The lock ordering is consistent (big_gpib_mutex -> descriptors_mutex) and the handlers only hold descriptors_mutex briefly during the lookup, so there is no deadlock risk and no impact on IO throughput.

Affected products and versions

linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel · 6.13 → 6.18.22
linux linux_kernel · 6.19 → 6.19.12

Analysis

This page is not indexable yet.Until it carries original analysis — what it actually exposes, how to check in two minutes whether a system was touched, what to do if it was — the page stays noindex. The database decides that, not the template.

References