Bug 2492344 (CVE-2026-52979)

Summary: CVE-2026-52979 kernel: net: psp: check for device unregister when creating assoc
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Product Security DevOps Team <prodsec-dev>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: unspecifiedCC: rhel-process-autobot, watson-tool-maintainers
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's Platform Security Processor (PSP) network driver. This vulnerability occurs when creating a device association, where the system fails to properly check if the device has been unregistered. A race condition exists where the device can be unregistered before a lock is acquired, leading to an invalid state. This could potentially result in system instability or a denial of service.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-06-24 18:06:55 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: psp: check for device unregister when creating assoc

psp_assoc_device_get_locked() obtains a psp_dev reference via
psp_dev_get_for_sock() (which uses psp_dev_tryget() under RCU);
it then acquires psd->lock and drops the reference. Before
the lock is taken, psp_dev_unregister() can run to completion:
take psd->lock, clear out state, unlock, drop the registration
reference.

The expectation is that the lock prevents device unregistration,
but much like with netdevs special care has to be taken when
"upgrading" a reference to a locked device. Add the missing
check if device is still alive. psp_dev_is_registered() exists
already but had no callers, which makes me wonder if I either
forgot to add this or lost the check during refactoring...