CVE-2026-53116

What the bug is

When the AP masks are updated via apmask_store() or aqmask_store(), ap_bus_revise_bindings() is called after ap_attr_mutex has been released. This calls __ap_revise_reserved(), which accesses the driver_override field without holding any lock, racing against a concurrent driver_override_store() that may free the old string, resulting in a potential UAF. Fix this by using the driver-core driver_override infrastructure, which protects all accesses with an internal spinlock. Note that unlike most other buses, the AP bus does not check driver_override in its match() callback; the override is checked in ap_device_probe() and __ap_revise_reserved() instead. Also note that we do not enable the driver_override feature of struct bus_type, as AP - in contrast to most other buses - passes "" to sysfs_emit() when the driver_override pointer is NULL. Thus, printing "\n" instead of "(null)\n". Additionally, AP has a custom counter that is modified in the corresponding custom driver_override_store().

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.c
drivers/s390/crypto/ap_bus.h
drivers/s390/crypto/ap_queue.c

What this is

S390 ZCRYPT AND PKEY DRIVER AND AP BUSMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/s390/crypto/ · linux-s390@vger.kernel.org · Supported

Check it on the machine

grep -wE 'CONFIG_AP|CONFIG_S390' /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this, but not on every flavour. At least one release below builds the code on some of its kernel flavours and not on others, so the answer depends on the architecture and flavour installed. The build rule could not be established for 1 release, so nothing is claimed about those.

• bookworm?
• trixieYnot built on amd64/amd64, amd64/cloud-amd64, amd64/rt/amd64, arm64/arm64, arm64/arm64-16k, arm64/cloud-arm64, arm64/rt/arm64, armel/rpi, armhf/armmp, armhf/armmp-lpae, armhf/rt/armmp, ppc64el/powerpc64le, ppc64el/powerpc64le-64k, riscv64/riscv64
• forky, sidYnot built on amd64/amd64, amd64/cloud-amd64, amd64/rt-amd64, arm64/arm64, arm64/arm64-16k, arm64/cloud-arm64, arm64/rt-arm64, armhf/armmp, armhf/armmp-lpae, loong64/loong64, ppc64el/powerpc64le, ppc64el/powerpc64le-64k, riscv64/riscv64

?

not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file

Y

built in where it is built at all; some flavours do not build it

Where a release above reads "not established", no build rule for the affected file was found in that release's kernel tree. That is a gap in this lookup, not a finding that the code is absent.

Build switches

CONFIG_AP, CONFIG_S390

Reads as

all on means the file is compiled; any one off means it is not.

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published

2026-06-24 (4 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.17%, higher than 5.4% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

unimportantsource

Subsystem

drivers/s390

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
6.19	7.0.10	8f2eca057043
6.19	7.1	81d6f7c3a70b