Bug 2482172 (CVE-2026-45914) - CVE-2026-45914 kernel: Revert "hwmon: (ibmpex) fix use-after-free in high/low store"
Summary: CVE-2026-45914 kernel: Revert "hwmon: (ibmpex) fix use-after-free in high/low...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2026-45914
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-05-27 15:14 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-05-28 01:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-05-27 15:14:43 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

Revert "hwmon: (ibmpex) fix use-after-free in high/low store"

This reverts commit 6946c726c3f4c36f0f049e6f97e88c510b15f65d.

Jean Delvare points out that the patch does not completely
fix the reported problem, that it in fact introduces a
(new) race condition, and that it may actually not be needed in
the first place.

Various AI reviews agree. Specific and relevant AI feedback:

"
This reordering sets the driver data to NULL before removing the sensor
attributes in the loop below.

ibmpex_show_sensor() retrieves this driver data via dev_get_drvdata() but
does not check if it is NULL before dereferencing it to access
data->sensors[].

If a userspace process reads a sensor file (like temp1_input) while this
delete function is running, could it race with the dev_set_drvdata(...,
NULL) call here and crash in ibmpex_show_sensor()?

Would it be safer to keep the original order where device_remove_file() is
called before clearing the driver data? device_remove_file() should wait
for any active sysfs callbacks to complete, which might already prevent the
use-after-free this patch intends to fix.
"

Revert the offending patch. If it can be shown that the originally reported
alleged race condition does indeed exist, it can always be re-introduced
with a complete fix.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.