CVE-2026-53145
Vulnerability Scoring
Highly exploitable, CVE-2026-53145 poses a critical security risk that could lead to severe breaches.
Highly exploitable, CVE-2026-53145 poses a critical security risk that could lead to severe breaches.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕝 08 Jul 2026, 14:57 UTC
Originally published on: 🕘 25 Jun 2026, 09:16 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 13 days
CVSS Release: version 3
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
Secondary
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVE-2026-53145: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/gem: Try to fix change_handle ioctl, attempt 4 [airlied: just added some comments on how to reenable] On-list because the cat is out of the bag and we're clearly not good enough to figure this out in private. The story thus far: 5e28b7b94408 ("drm: Set old handle to NULL before prime swap in change_handle") tried to fix a race condition between the gem_close and gem_change_handle ioctls, but got a few things wrong: - There's a confusion with the local variable handle, which is actually the new handle, and so the two-stage trick was actually applied to the wrong idr slot. 7164d78559b0 ("drm/gem: fix race between change_handle and handle_delete") tried to fix that by adding yet another code block, but forgot to add the error handling. Which meant we now have two paths, both kinda wrong. - dc366607c41c ("drm: Replace old pointer to new idr") tried to apply another fix, but inconsistently, again because of the handle confusion - this would be the right fix (kinda, somewhat, it's a mess) if we'd do the two-stage approach for the new handle. Except that wasn't the intent of the original fix. We also didn't have an igt merged for the original ioctl, which is a big no-go. This was attempted to address off-list in the original bugfix, and amd QA people claimed the bug was fixed now. Very clearly that's not the case. Here's my attempt to sort this out: - Rename the local variable to new_handle, the old aliasing with args->handle is just too dangerously confusing. - Merge the gem obj lookup with the two-stage idr_replace so that we avoid getting ourselves confused there. - This means we don't have a surplus temporary reference anymore, only an inherited from the idr. A concurrent gem_close on the new_handle could steal that. Fix that with the same two-stage approach create_tail uses. This is a bit overkill as documented in the comment, but I also don't trust my ability to understand this all correctly, so go with the established pattern we have from other ioctls instead for maximum paranoia. - Adjust error paths. I've tried to make the error and success paths common, because they are identical except for which handle is removed and on which we call idr_replace to (re)install the object again. But that made things messier to read, so I've left it at the more verbose version, which unfortunately hides the symmetry in the entire code flow a bit. - While at it, also replace the 7 space indent with 1 tab. And finally, because I flat out don't trust my abilities here at all anymore: - Disable the ioctl until we have the igt situation and everything else sorted out on-list and with full consensus. v2: Sashiko noticed that I didn't handle the error path for idr_replace correctly, it must be checked with IS_ERR_OR_NULL like in gem_handle_delete. So yeah, definitely should just the existing paths 1:1 because this is endless amounts of tricky. Also add the Fixes: line for the original ioctl, I forgot that too.
The exploitability of CVE-2026-53145 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
CVE-2026-53145 presents an accessible attack vector with minimal effort required. Restricting access controls and implementing security updates are critical to reducing exploitation risks.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-53145, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-53145, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.