CVE-2026-52947
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: qrtr: fix refcount saturation and potential UAF in qrtr_port_remove
In qrtr_port_remove(), the socket reference count is decremented via __sock_put() before the port is removed from the qrtr_ports XArray and before the RCU grace period elapses.
This breaks the fundamental RCU update paradigm. It exposes a race window where a concurrent RCU reader (such as qrtr_reset_ports() or qrtr_port_lookup()) can obtain a pointer to the socket from the XArray, and attempt to call sock_hold() on a socket whose reference count has already dropped to zero.
This exact race condition was hit during syzkaller fuzzing, leading to the following refcount saturation warning and a potential Use-After-Free:
refcount_t: saturated; leaking memory. WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1273 at lib/refcount.c:22 refcount_warn_saturate+0xae/0x1d0 Modules linked in: qrtr(+) bochs drm_shmem_helper ... Call Trace: <TASK> qrtr_reset_ports net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:768 [inline] [qrtr] __qrtr_bind.isra.0+0x48b/0x570 net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:805 [qrtr] qrtr_bind+0x17d/0x210 net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:901 [qrtr] kernel_bind+0xe4/0x120 net/socket.c:3592 qrtr_ns_init+0x1a6/0x380 net/qrtr/ns.c:715 [qrtr] qrtr_proto_init+0x3b/0xff0 net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:169 [qrtr] do_one_initcall+0xf5/0x5e0 init/main.c:1283 ... </TASK>
Fix this by deferring the reference count decrement until after the xa_erase() and the synchronize_rcu() complete.
(Note: The v1 of this patch incorrectly replaced __sock_put() with sock_put(). As Simon Horman pointed out, the callers of qrtr_port_remove() still hold a reference to the socket, so freeing the socket memory here would lead to a subsequent UAF in the caller. Thus, the __sock_put() is kept, but only repositioned to close the RCU race.)
No affected software listed.
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/03bfa95e452e2b6ccd76a332060ae4feaf5ad84d
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2047c2aa0963bb2872fd722300a15bcb441a4c00
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2aa4c12723fe432e623462a3be42a197a128722b
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3b20ec8f31e8a6a6782243f473b0abd3463621df
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/474293d90880622fde9d2430fb0165767090f7b3
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7de2d447072be3b1a76793f034432338fc9c494b
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a2171131ecda1ed61a594a1eb715e75fdad0fef5
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ab269990ed58143a92a263be1bee626d82ac03da
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.