CVE-2026-68378

What the bug is

When a dpll_pin is shared across multiple dpll_device instances and those devices are being unregistered (e.g. during driver module removal), a NULL pointer dereference can occur in dpll_msg_add_pin_ref_sync(). This happens under the following conditions: - A pin is registered with two or more dpll devices (dpll_A, dpll_B) - The pin has ref_sync pairs with other pins - During unregistration of dpll_A's pins, a ref_sync partner pin is unregistered first, removing it from dpll_A->pin_refs - But since the partner pin is still registered with dpll_B, its dpll_refs is not empty, so dpll_pin_ref_sync_pair_del() does NOT run and the partner stays in the pin's ref_sync_pins xarray - When the pin itself is then unregistered from dpll_A, the delete notification calls dpll_msg_add_pin_ref_sync() which finds the partner in ref_sync_pins, passes dpll_pin_available() (partner is still registered with dpll_B), but dpll_pin_on_dpll_priv(dpll_A, partner) returns NULL because partner was already removed from dpll_A->pin_refs - The NULL priv pointer is passed to the driver's ref_sync_get callback, which dereferences it BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000034 Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI RIP: 0010:zl3073x_dpll_input_pin_ref_sync_get+0x73/0x80 [zl3073x] Call Trace: dpll_msg_add_pin_ref_sync+0xb8/0x200 dpll_cmd_pin_get_one+0x3b6/0x4b0 dpll_pin_event_send+0x72/0x140 __dpll_pin_unregister+0x5a/0x2b0 dpll_pin_unregister+0x49/0x70 Fix this by skipping ref_sync pins whose priv pointer cannot be resolved for the current dpll device.

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/dpll/dpll_netlink.c

What this is

DPLL SUBSYSTEMMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/dpll/ · netdev@vger.kernel.org · Supported

Check it on the machine

grep -w CONFIG_DPLL /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/cloud-amd64, arm64/cloud-arm64, armel/rpi
• forky, sidYnot built on amd64/cloud-amd64, arm64/cloud-arm64

?

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 switch

CONFIG_DPLL

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

2026-08-10 (2 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.21%, higher than 9.9% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

unimportantsource

Subsystem

drivers/dpll

Upstream fixes

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

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
6.12.97	6.12.97	66fbe0499ef5
6.17	6.18.42	51c2fcc4cd2e
6.17	7.1.6	4b3e6b9fdaeb
6.17	7.2	d2e914a4a0d0