CVE-2026-90431

Published Sep 17, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: remoteproc: Prevent crash handling to race with rproc_del() There's no synchronization between rproc_crash_handler_work() and rproc_del(), as such it's possible for a driver to be removed while crash-handler work is scheduled, or even executing - resulting in use-after-free issues. To avoid this the scheduled work need to be cancelled and synchronized against before the removal proceeds. In order to ensure that this doesn't race with the reporting, and thereby scheduling new work, a "deleting" flag is introduced. This is similar to the RPROC_DELETE state that was introduced to ensure that "start" didn't race with rproc_del(), but the existing mechanism can not be used as it's valid to call rproc_report_crash() in atomic context - and the "state" is protected by a mutex. In the event that work is cancelled the pm_stay_awake() is left unbalanced and need to be unrolled. The blocking and cancelling of crash-handler work prior to the actual rproc_shutdown() call does have the explicit side-effect that crashes resulting from the shutdown process will not enter the crash-handling path, and as such will not generate devcoredumps etc. Due to the existing mutual exclusion between these code paths there's no concrete reduction in functionality, but further work would be needed to handle this case.

Is your site exposed to CVE-2026-90431?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-90431? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: remoteproc: Prevent crash handling to race with rproc_del() There's no synchronization between rproc_crash_handler_work() and rproc_del(), as such it's possible for a driver to be removed while crash-handler work is scheduled, or even executing - resulting in use-after-free issues. To avoid this the scheduled work need to be cancelled and synchronized against before the removal proceeds. In order to ensure that this doesn't race with the reporting, and thereby scheduling new work, a "deleting" flag is introduced. This is similar to the RPROC_DELETE state that was introduced to ensure that "start" didn't race with rproc_del(), but the existing mechanism can not be used as it's valid to call rproc_report_crash() in atomic context - and the "state" is protected by a mutex. In the event that work is cancelled the pm_stay_awake() is left unbalanced and need to be unrolled. The blocking and cancelling of crash-handler work prior to the actual rproc_shutdown() call does have the explicit side-effect that crashes resulting from the shutdown process will not enter the crash-handling path, and as such will not generate devcoredumps etc. Due to the existing mutual exclusion between these code paths there's no concrete reduction in functionality, but further work would be needed to handle this case.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-90431? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2026-90431 — free, no signup required.