# CVE-2026-53145: drm/gem: Try to fix change_handle ioctl, attempt 4

> A race condition in the Linux kernel DRM GEM change_handle ioctl allows attackers to trigger memory corruption, potentially leading to privilege escalation or code execution.

- **Severity:** High 7.8 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Any signed-in user
- **Attackable:** Local or same network only
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 25 Jun 2026
- **Updated:** 19 Oct 2026
- **Also known as:** BELL-CVE-2026-53145, DEBIAN-CVE-2026-53145, GHSA-x237-c35r-5vq5, UBUNTU-CVE-2026-53145

## What is CVE-2026-53145?

CVE-2026-53145 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 25 Jun 2026. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

drm/gem: Try to fix change_handle ioctl, attempt 4

[airlied: just added some comments on how to reenable]
On-list because the cat is out of the bag and we're clearly not good
enough to figure this out in private. The story thus far:

5e28b7b94408 ("drm: Set old handle to NULL before prime swap in
change_handle") tried to fix a race condition between the gem_close and
gem_change_handle ioctls, but got a few things wrong:

- There's a confusion with the local variable handle, which is actually
  the new handle, and so the two-stage trick was actually applied to the
  wrong idr slot. 7164d78559b0 ("drm/gem: fix race between
  change_handle and handle_delete") tried to fix that by adding yet
  another code block, but forgot to add the error handling. Which meant
  we now have two paths, both kinda wrong.

- dc366607c41c ("drm: Replace old pointer to new idr") tried to apply
  another fix, but inconsistently, again because of the handle confusion
  - this would be the right fix (kinda, somewhat, it's a mess) if we'd
  do the two-stage approach for the new handle. Except that wasn't the
  intent of the original fix.

We also didn't have an igt merged for the original ioctl, which is a big
no-go. This was attempted to address off-list in the original bugfix,
and amd QA people claimed the bug was fixed now. Very clearly that's not
the case. Here's my attempt to sort this out:

- Rename the local variable to new_handle, the old aliasing with
  args->handle is just too dangerously confusing.

- Merge the gem obj lookup with the two-stage idr_replace so that we
  avoid getting ourselves confused there.

- This means we don't have a surplus temporary reference anymore, only
  an inherited from the idr. A concurrent gem_close on the new_handle
  could steal that. Fix that with the same two-stage approach
  create_tail uses. This is a bit overkill as documented in the comment,
  but I also don't trust my ability to understand this all correctly, so
  go with the established pattern we have from other ioctls instead for
  maximum paranoia.

- Adjust error paths. I've tried to make the error and success paths
  common, because they are identical except for which handle is removed
  and on which we call idr_replace to (re)install the object again. But
  that made things messier to read, so I've left it at the more verbose
  version, which unfortunately hides the symmetry in the entire code
  flow a bit.

- While at it, also replace the 7 space indent with 1 tab.

And finally, because I flat out don't trust my abilities here at all
anymore:

- Disable the ioctl until we have the igt situation and everything else
  sorted out on-list and with full consensus.

v2:

Sashiko noticed that I didn't handle the error path for idr_replace
correctly, it must be checked with IS_ERR_OR_NULL like in
gem_handle_delete. So yeah, definitely should just the existing paths
1:1 because this is endless amounts of tricky.

Also add the Fixes: line for the original ioctl, I forgot that too.

Weakness: CWE-367 (Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition)

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-53145?

It affects 2 products.


Products: Linux kernel, Redhat Enterprise Linux.

## How do I fix CVE-2026-53145?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2026-53145 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-53145 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

- [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2026-53145 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2026-53145 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 25 Jun 2026. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-53145 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53145/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53145/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-53145
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53145
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2026-53145

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53145/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.
