In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/drm_file: Fix pid refcounting race
, Maxime Ripard
, Thomas Zimmermann
filp->pid is supposed to be a refcounted pointer; however, before this
patch, drm_file_update_pid() only increments the refcount of a struct
pid after storing a pointer to it in filp->pid and dropping the
dev->filelist_mutex, making the following race possible:
process A process B
========= =========
begin drm_file_update_pid
mutex_lock(&dev->filelist_mutex)
rcu_replace_pointer(filp->pid, , 1)
mutex_unlock(&dev->filelist_mutex)
begin drm_file_update_pid
mutex_lock(&dev->filelist_mutex)
rcu_replace_pointer(filp->pid, , 1)
mutex_unlock(&dev->filelist_mutex)
get_pid()
synchronize_rcu()
put_pid() * pid B reaches refcount 0 and is freed here *
get_pid() * UAF *
synchronize_rcu()
put_pid()
As far as I know, this race can only occur with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
because it requires RCU to detect a quiescent state in code that is not
explicitly calling into the scheduler.
This race leads to use-after-free of a "struct pid".
It is probably somewhat hard to hit because process A has to pass
through a synchronize_rcu() operation while process B is between
mutex_unlock() and get_pid().
Fix it by ensuring that by the time a pointer to the current task's pid
is stored in the file, an extra reference to the pid has been taken.
This fix also removes the condition for synchronize_rcu(); I think
that optimization is unnecessary complexity, since in that case we
would usually have bailed out on the lockless check above.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.0 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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