https://vulnerability.circl.lu Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Wed, 30 Sep 2026 03:02:20 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2023-54259 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>soundwire: bus: Fix unbalanced pm_runtime_put() causing usage count underflow</p> <p>This reverts commit 443a98e649b4 (&#34;soundwire: bus: use pm_runtime_resume_and_get()&#34;)</p> <p>Change calls to pm_runtime_resume_and_get() back to pm_runtime_get_sync(). This fixes a usage count underrun caused by doing a pm_runtime_put() even though pm_runtime_resume_and_get() returned an error.</p> <p>The three affected functions ignore -EACCES error from trying to get pm_runtime, and carry on, including a put at the end of the function. But pm_runtime_resume_and_get() does not increment the usage count if it returns an error. So in the -EACCES case you must not call pm_runtime_put().</p> <p>The documentation for pm_runtime_get_sync() says: &#34;Consider using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() ... as this is likely to result in cleaner code.&#34;</p> <p>In this case I don&#39;t think it results in cleaner code because the pm_runtime_put() at the end of the function would have to be conditional on the return value from pm_runtime_resume_and_get() at the top of the function.</p> <p>pm_runtime_get_sync() doesn&#39;t have this problem because it always increments the count, so always needs a put. The code can just flow through and do the pm_runtime_put() unconditionally.</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>soundwire: bus: Fix unbalanced pm_runtime_put() causing usage count underflow</p> <p>This reverts commit 443a98e649b4 (&#34;soundwire: bus: use pm_runtime_resume_and_get()&#34;)</p> <p>Change calls to pm_runtime_resume_and_get() back to pm_runtime_get_sync(). This fixes a usage count underrun caused by doing a pm_runtime_put() even though pm_runtime_resume_and_get() returned an error.</p> <p>The three affected functions ignore -EACCES error from trying to get pm_runtime, and carry on, including a put at the end of the function. But pm_runtime_resume_and_get() does not increment the usage count if it returns an error. So in the -EACCES case you must not call pm_runtime_put().</p> <p>The documentation for pm_runtime_get_sync() says: &#34;Consider using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() ... as this is likely to result in cleaner code.&#34;</p> <p>In this case I don&#39;t think it results in cleaner code because the pm_runtime_put() at the end of the function would have to be conditional on the return value from pm_runtime_resume_and_get() at the top of the function.</p> <p>pm_runtime_get_sync() doesn&#39;t have this problem because it always increments the count, so always needs a put. The code can just flow through and do the pm_runtime_put() unconditionally.</p> https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2023-54259