CVE-2026-46275 — linux / linux_kernel
Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: hci_uart: fix UAFs and race conditions in close and init paths
Vulnerabilities leading to Use-After-Free (UAF) and Null Pointer Dereference (NPD) conditions were observed in the lifecycle management of hci_uart.
The primary issue arises because the workqueues (init_ready and
write_work) are only flushed/cancelled if the HCI_UART_PROTO_READY
flag is set during TTY close. If a hangup occurs before setup completes,
hci_uart_tty_close() skips the teardown of these workqueues and
proceeds to free the hu struct. When the scheduled work executes
later, it blindly dereferences the freed hu struct.
Furthermore, several data races and UAFs were identified in the teardown sequence:
- Calling hci_uart_flush() from hci_uart_close() without effectively disabling write_work causes a race condition where both can concurrently double-free hu->tx_skb. This happens because protocol timers can concurrently invoke hci_uart_tx_wakeup() and requeue write_work.
- Calling hci_free_dev(hdev) before hu->proto->close(hu) causes a UAF when vendor specific protocol close callbacks dereference hu->hdev.
- In the initialization error paths, failing to take the proto_lock write lock before clearing PROTO_READY leads to races with active readers. Additionally, hci_uart_tty_receive() accesses hu->hdev outside the read lock, leading to UAFs if the initialization error path frees hdev concurrently.
Fix these synchronization and lifecycle issues by:
- Re-ordering hci_uart_tty_close() to clear HCI_UART_PROTO_READY first, followed immediately by a cancel_work_sync(&hu->write_work). Clearing the flag locks out concurrent protocol timers from successfully invoking hci_uart_tx_wakeup(), effectively rendering the cancellation permanent and preventing the tx_skb double-free.
- Note: Clearing PROTO_READY early causes hci_uart_close() to skip hu->proto->flush(). This is perfectly safe in the tty_close path because hu->proto->close() executes shortly after, which intrinsically purges all protocol SKB queues and tears down the state.
- Relocating hu->proto->close(hu) strictly prior to hci_free_dev(hdev) across all close and error paths to prevent vendor-level UAFs.
- Moving the hdev->stat.byte_rx increment in hci_uart_tty_receive() inside the proto_lock read-side critical section to safely synchronize with device unregistration.
- Adding cancel_work_sync(&hu->write_work) to hci_uart_close() to safely flush the workqueue before hci_uart_flush() is invoked via the HCI core.
- Utilizing cancel_work_sync() instead of disable_work_sync() across all paths to prevent permanently breaking user-space retry capabilities.
| Software | Affected versions |
|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 4.14.203, < 4.15 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 4.19.153, < 4.20 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.4.73, < 5.5 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.8.17, < 5.9 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.9.2, < 5.10.258 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.11, < 5.15.209 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 5.16, < 6.1.175 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.2, < 6.6.142 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.12.92 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.18.34 |
| linux / linux_kernel | >= 6.19, < 7.0.11 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc1 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc2 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc3 |
| linux / linux_kernel | = 7.1-rc4 |
- https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-784472.html
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/192cb0f1ca706d9a1bc36ae0ad5f666d1e4fd894
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7338031946bd06f6dff149e67b60c4cd083bfea8
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/78aad93e938f013d9272fe0ee168f27883afa95c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/81c7a3c22a0f2808cf4ae0b4908f59763b23606d
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9d20d48be2c4a071fb015eb09bda2cecd25daf34
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c1bb9336ae6b54a5f6a353c4bd4ed9a4307e429b
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c85cff648a2bc92322912db5f1727ad05afae7b6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e2d19969c8d9198ecc3090bcd5312ecd503a3339
Is CVE-2026-46275 exposed on your perimeter?
A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.
What is attack surface management? →
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.