Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-72182 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-72182
power: supply: charger-manager: fix refcount leak in is_full_charged()
Published 2026-08-15 (2 months ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem drivers/power. Debian urgency: not yet assigned.
Debian does not build this code. The per-release build detail is under "Where it lives" below.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-72182 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | fixed | 6.1.180-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.1.180-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian 13trixie | fixed | 6.12.100-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.12.100-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 7.1.5-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.1.5-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 7.1.5-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.1.5-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
In is_full_charged(), power_supply_get_by_name() is called to obtain a reference to the fuel_gauge power supply. If the voltage check (uV >= desc->fullbatt_uV) succeeds, the function returns true directly without releasing the reference, leaking the refcount. Fix this by setting a flag and jumping to the out label where power_supply_put() properly drops the reference.
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/power/supply/charger-manager.c
- What this is
- POWER SUPPLY CLASS/SUBSYSTEM and DRIVERSMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/power/supply/ · linux-pm@vger.kernel.org · Maintained
- Kernel module
- none to look for. The file would have gone into charger_manager, and Debian does not compile it into that module, so finding charger_manager in lsmod would say nothing about this CVE.
Check it on the machine
grep -wE 'CONFIG_CHARGER_MANAGER|CONFIG_POWER_SUPPLY' /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 does not build this code. In 4 releases below, every kernel flavour Debian publishes has the switch off, so the vulnerable file is compiled into no kernel binary Debian ships.
- bookworm, trixie, forky, sidn
- n
- not enabled on any flavour - this release does not build the code
- Build switches
- CONFIG_CHARGER_MANAGER, CONFIG_POWER_SUPPLY
- 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
- 2026-08-15 (2 months ago)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- 0.22%, higher than 11.6% of all CVEssource
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- not yet assignedsource
- Subsystem
- drivers/power
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 5.10 | 5.10.261 | afe3202c30bd |
| 5.10 | 5.15.212 | 93b99b63ad56 |
| 5.10 | 6.1.178 | 6f75912cc6ff |
| 5.10 | 6.6.145 | e44ad91e9f75 |
| 5.10 | 6.12.97 | 3999f47e4bbf |
| 5.10 | 6.18.40 | 193e6471e985 |
| 5.10 | 7.1.5 | e8631b883338 |
| 5.10 | 7.2 | 4373cfa38ead |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-72182, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.