CVE-2026-53142

What the bug is

The xe driver keeps track of whether to probe display, and whether display hardware is there, using xe->info.probe_display. It gets set to false if there's no display after intel_display_device_probe(). However, the display may also be disabled via fuses, detected at a later time in intel_display_device_info_runtime_init(). In this case, the xe driver does for_each_intel_crtc() on uninitialized mode config in xe_display_flush_cleanup_work(), leading to a NULL pointer dereference, and generally calls display code with display info cleared. Check for intel_display_device_present() after intel_display_device_info_runtime_init(), and reset xe->info.probe_display as necessary. Also do unset_display_features() for completeness, although display runtime init has already done that. This will need to be unified across all cases later. Move intel_display_device_info_runtime_init() call slightly earlier, similar to i915, to avoid a bunch of unnecessary setup for no display cases. Note #1: The xe driver has no business doing low level display plumbing like for_each_intel_crtc() to begin with. It all needs to happen in display code. Note #2: The actual bug is present already in commit 44e694958b95 ("drm/xe/display: Implement display support"), but the oops was likely introduced later at commit ddf6492e0e50 ("drm/xe/display: Make display suspend/resume work on discrete"). (cherry picked from commit 7c3eb9f47533220888a67266448185fd0775d4da)

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/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c

What this is

INTEL DRM DISPLAY FOR XE AND I915 DRIVERSMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/ · intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org · Supported

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Not established. This site could not find the build rule for the affected file in the kernel trees Debian ships, so it has no answer about whether Debian compiles this code. Read that as unknown, never as absent.

• bookworm, trixie, forky, sid?

?

not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file

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.

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

Signals

Published

2026-06-25 (4 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.12%, higher than 1.8% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

unimportantsource

Subsystem

drivers/gpu

Upstream fixes

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

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
6.8	6.12.95	ddf1fe4c043a
6.8	6.18.36	0f68ddfaaebf
6.8	7.0.13	238bcdaae8f2
6.8	7.1	68938cc08e23

Debian advisories