Linux: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization
CVE-2026-68384 is a high-severity concurrent execution using shared resource with improper synchronization vulnerability in Linux, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 35ba43b541117bfb595e4b807ba447cf4335cc7d, f2ebfd5cc87f1393a30c8b8b0a6c20cb22cffa97, 56441f9e08ad68697295b8835266d2bc48ab59b5 as the first without the flaw, so updating Linux to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.1% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Linux to 35ba43b541117bfb595e4b807ba447cf4335cc7d or f2ebfd5cc87f1393a30c8b8b0a6c20cb22cffa97 or 56441f9e08ad68697295b8835266d2bc48ab59b5, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | 864690cf4dd62482b6dd049d82c509886c904303 up to, but not including, 35ba43b541117bfb595e4b807ba447cf4335cc7d; 864690cf4dd62482b6dd049d82c509886c904303 up to, but not including, f2ebfd5cc87f1393a30c8b8b0a6c20cb22cffa97; 864690cf4dd62482b6dd049d82c509886c904303 up to, but not including, 56441f9e08ad68697295b8835266d2bc48ab59b5; 6.18 | 35ba43b541117bfb595e4b807ba447cf4335cc7d, f2ebfd5cc87f1393a30c8b8b0a6c20cb22cffa97, 56441f9e08ad68697295b8835266d2bc48ab59b5 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA.
Official description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/xe/vf: Fix VF CCS attach/detach race with in-flight BO moves xe_bo_move() attaches VF CCS read/write batch buffers (BBs) to a BO after it transitions NULL/SYSTEM -> TT, and detaches them after it transitions TT -> SYSTEM. Both operations were done synchronously on the CPU immediately after building the move's copy/clear fence, without waiting for that fence to signal. This creates two races with VF migration: - Attach happens too late relative to the copy job it is meant to protect. If the copy job is submitted before the CCS BBs are attached, a VF migration event that pauses execution mid-copy can observe partially copied CCS metadata without the attach state needed to correctly save/restore it. - Detach happens too early relative to the copy job that moves data out of TT. The CCS BBs are torn down right after the copy fence is obtained, while the actual blit may still be in flight. A VF migration event that pauses execution mid-copy can then race the save/restore path against the still-running blit, and the CCS BBs it would need to make sense of the paused state have already been removed. Fix both races: - Move the attach call to before the copy/clear job is submitted, so the CCS BBs are already registered by the time the copy runs. On attach failure, unwind and bail out of the move. xe_migrate_ccs_rw_copy() now takes the destination resource explicitly, since bo->ttm.resource is not updated to the new resource until after the move commits. - Detach only after explicitly waiting for the copy fence to signal, instead of tearing down the CCS BBs immediately after obtaining it. While here, also fix xe_sriov_vf_ccs_attach_bo() to properly unwind and propagate errors: the per-context loop previously never broke out on error, silently discarding earlier failures. Unwind by clearing each attached context directly via xe_migrate_ccs_rw_copy_clear() instead of reusing xe_sriov_vf_ccs_detach_bo(), which requires both contexts to be attached before it will clean up either one. (cherry picked from commit d45ad0aa7a1eb5d7288b5ed948b05695611dc39e)
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
- Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
- Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring. Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Recent Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.