VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jul 2026Updated 19 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-64029: Linux kernel · ALSA: seq: Serialize UMP output teardown with event_input

Affects Linux kernelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High · fixed in ef46b616a4c219185bbf10ebcbacb571583fd0e4 : patch Linux kernel soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS

0.09% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers cannot reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Total control over the software or total information disclosure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-10-16.

Patch

Available – fixed in ef46b616a4c219185bbf10ebcbacb571583fd0e4, 60a1969fae6209644698fca91c185d153674f631, 8ba1c4ddbb1c67d34bb440aecb9f5690ed3f64cb +2

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jul 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 81fd444aa371261cd33f31d4ffd80faeeeab0cc9, < ef46b616a4c219185bbf10ebcbacb571583fd0e4	Fixed in ef46b616a4c219185bbf10ebcbacb571583fd0e4
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 81fd444aa371261cd33f31d4ffd80faeeeab0cc9, < 60a1969fae6209644698fca91c185d153674f631	Fixed in 60a1969fae6209644698fca91c185d153674f631
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 81fd444aa371261cd33f31d4ffd80faeeeab0cc9, < 8ba1c4ddbb1c67d34bb440aecb9f5690ed3f64cb	Fixed in 8ba1c4ddbb1c67d34bb440aecb9f5690ed3f64cb
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 81fd444aa371261cd33f31d4ffd80faeeeab0cc9, < 3aab4a58d23fb22dac5b558bbe5df1a8dad00b4b	Fixed in 3aab4a58d23fb22dac5b558bbe5df1a8dad00b4b
LinuxLinux	Affected ≥ 81fd444aa371261cd33f31d4ffd80faeeeab0cc9, < 0cb1ad795570167558530d6194297ac2396a1991	Fixed in 0cb1ad795570167558530d6194297ac2396a1991
LinuxLinux	Affected =6.5	Fixed in–

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: seq: Serialize UMP output teardown with event_input seq_ump_process_event() borrows client->out_rfile.output without synchronizing with the first-open and last-close transition in seq_ump_client_open() and seq_ump_client_close(). The last output unuse can therefore drop opened[STR_OUT] to zero and release the rawmidi file while an in-flight event_input callback is still inside snd_rawmidi_kernel_write(). That leaves the rawmidi substream runtime exposed to teardown before the write path has taken its own buffer reference. Add a per-client rwlock for the event_input-visible output file. Publish a newly opened output file under the write side, and hold the read side from the output lookup through snd_rawmidi_kernel_write(). The last output close copies and clears the visible output file under the write side, then drops the lock and releases the saved rawmidi file. Use IRQ-safe rwlock guards because event_input can also be reached from atomic sequencer delivery. The buggy scenario involves two paths, with each column showing the order within that path: path A label: event_input path path B label: last unuse path 1. seq_ump_process_event() reads 1. seq_ump_client_close() client->out_rfile.output. drops opened[STR_OUT] to zero. 2. snd_rawmidi_kernel_write1() 2. snd_rawmidi_kernel_release() has not yet pinned runtime. closes the output file. 3. The writer continues using 3. close_substream() frees the borrowed substream. substream->runtime. This keeps the output substream and runtime alive for the full event_input write while keeping rawmidi release outside the rwlock. KASAN reproduced this as a slab-use-after-free in snd_rawmidi_kernel_write1(), with allocation through seq_ump_use()/snd_seq_port_connect() and free through seq_ump_unuse()/snd_seq_port_disconnect(). Validation reproduced this kernel report: KASAN slab-use-after-free in snd_rawmidi_kernel_write1+0x9d/0x400 RIP: 0033:0x7f5528af837f Read of size 8 Call trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x73/0xb0 (?:?) print_report+0xd1/0x650 (?:?) srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 (?:?) __virt_addr_valid+0x1a7/0x340 (?:?) kasan_complete_mode_report_info+0x64/0x200 (?:?) kasan_report+0xf7/0x130 (?:?) snd_rawmidi_kernel_write1+0x9d/0x400 (?:?) __asan_load8+0x82/0xb0 (?:?) update_stack_state+0x1ef/0x2d0 (?:?) snd_rawmidi_kernel_write+0x1a/0x20 (?:?) seq_ump_process_event+0xd4/0x120 (sound/core/seq/seq_ump_client.c:82) __snd_seq_deliver_single_event+0x8a/0xe0 (?:?) snd_seq_deliver_from_ump+0x2b2/0xd60 (?:?) lock_acquire+0x14e/0x2e0 (?:?) find_held_lock+0x31/0x90 (?:?) snd_seq_port_use_ptr+0xa6/0xe0 (?:?) __kasan_check_write+0x18/0x20 (?:?) do_raw_read_unlock+0x32/0xa0 (?:?) _raw_read_unlock+0x26/0x50 (?:?) snd_seq_deliver_single_event+0x45c/0x4b0 (?:?) snd_seq_deliver_event+0x10d/0x1b0 (?:?) snd_seq_client_enqueue_event+0x192/0x240 (?:?) snd_seq_write+0x2cd/0x450 (?:?) apparmor_file_permission+0x20/0x30 (?:?) security_file_permission+0x51/0x60 (?:?) vfs_write+0x1ce/0x850 (?:?) __fget_files+0x12b/0x220 (?:?) lock_release+0xc8/0x2a0 (?:?) __rcu_read_unlock+0x74/0x2d0 (?:?) __fget_files+0x135/0x220 (?:?) ksys_write+0x15a/0x180 (?:?) rcu_is_watching+0x24/0x60 (?:?) __x64_sys_write+0x46/0x60 (?:?) x64_sys_call+0x7d/0x20d0 (?:?) do_syscall_64+0xc1/0x360 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:87) entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f (?:?)

CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Time-of-Check and Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-362

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats