In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
soc: qcom: pmic_glink_altmode: fix drm bridge use-after-free
A recent DRM series purporting to simplify support for "transparent
bridges" and handling of probe deferrals ironically exposed a
use-after-free issue on pmic_glink_altmode probe deferral.
This has manifested itself as the display subsystem occasionally failing
to initialise and NULL-pointer dereferences during boot of machines like
the Lenovo ThinkPad X13s.
Specifically, the dp-hpd bridge is currently registered before all
resources have been acquired which means that it can also be
deregistered on probe deferrals.
In the meantime there is a race window where the new aux bridge driver
(or PHY driver previously) may have looked up the dp-hpd bridge and
stored a (non-reference-counted) pointer to the bridge which is about to
be deallocated.
When the display controller is later initialised, this triggers a
use-after-free when attaching the bridges:
dp -> aux -> dp-hpd (freed)
which may, for example, result in the freed bridge failing to attach:
[drm:drm_bridge_attach [drm]] *ERROR* failed to attach bridge /soc@0/phy@88eb000 to encoder TMDS-31: -16
or a NULL-pointer dereference:
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000
...
Call trace:
drm_bridge_attach+0x70/0x1a8 [drm]
drm_aux_bridge_attach+0x24/0x38 [aux_bridge]
drm_bridge_attach+0x80/0x1a8 [drm]
dp_bridge_init+0xa8/0x15c [msm]
msm_dp_modeset_init+0x28/0xc4 [msm]
The DRM bridge implementation is clearly fragile and implicitly built on
the assumption that bridges may never go away. In this case, the fix is
to move the bridge registration in the pmic_glink_altmode driver to
after all resources have been looked up.
Incidentally, with the new dp-hpd bridge implementation, which registers
child devices, this is also a requirement due to a long-standing issue
in driver core that can otherwise lead to a probe deferral loop (see
commit fbc35b45f9f6 ("Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER")).
[DB: slightly fixed commit message by adding the word 'commit']
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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