In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
soundwire: bus: Fix unbalanced pm_runtime_put() causing usage count underflow
This reverts commit
443a98e649b4 ("soundwire: bus: use pm_runtime_resume_and_get()")
Change calls to pm_runtime_resume_and_get() back to pm_runtime_get_sync().
This fixes a usage count underrun caused by doing a pm_runtime_put() even
though pm_runtime_resume_and_get() returned an error.
The three affected functions ignore -EACCES error from trying to get
pm_runtime, and carry on, including a put at the end of the function.
But pm_runtime_resume_and_get() does not increment the usage count if it
returns an error. So in the -EACCES case you must not call
pm_runtime_put().
The documentation for pm_runtime_get_sync() says:
"Consider using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() ... as this is likely to
result in cleaner code."
In this case I don't think it results in cleaner code because the
pm_runtime_put() at the end of the function would have to be conditional on
the return value from pm_runtime_resume_and_get() at the top of the
function.
pm_runtime_get_sync() doesn't have this problem because it always
increments the count, so always needs a put. The code can just flow through
and do the pm_runtime_put() unconditionally.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the BOD 26-04 block below.
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it