CVE-2026-74500

ALSA: usb-audio: fix stack info leak in RME Digiface status

N/A
Published: August 15, 2026 at 12:27 PM UTC
Updated: August 17, 2026 at 06:19 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
N/A
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: usb-audio: fix stack info leak in RME Digiface status snd_rme_digiface_read_status() reads a four-word status block from the device into an uninitialised on-stack __le32 buf[4] and, whenever the vendor control-IN transfer does not return a negative error, copies all four words into the caller's status[]. snd_usb_ctl_msg() copies the full requested size back into the caller's buffer regardless of how many bytes the data stage actually delivered: buf = kmemdup(data, size, GFP_KERNEL); err = usb_control_msg(dev, pipe, request, requesttype, value, index, buf, size, timeout); memcpy(data, buf, size); usb_control_msg() returns the transferred length on a short control-IN, which is a non-negative value, and writes only that many bytes. The remainder of the copy back is the kmemdup()ed image of the caller's buffer, so a device answering with a short data stage leaves the trailing words of buf[] holding leftover kernel stack. The only guard in the caller is err < 0, so those words are stored into status[]. They then reach user space: snd_rme_digiface_get_status_val() selects a 16-bit halfword of status[] per the control's reg/mask, and the eight Digiface status controls together expose the whole 16-byte frame to an unprivileged reader of /dev/snd/controlC*. Zero-initialise the buffer so a short read yields zeros instead of stack residue. This mirrors snd_rme_get_status1(), which already clears its output word before the same kind of vendor read. Discovered by XBOW, triaged by Baul Lee <[email protected]>

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v ≥ 6.10.14v ≥ 6.11.36.10.14 ≤ v < 6.116.11.3 ≤ v < 6.126.12 ≤ v < 6.12.1036.12 ≤ v < 6.18.446.12 ≤ v < 7.1.86.12 ≤ v < 7.23089703ab71484a8b9a7641051181d11d60f870c50f63f11a6ddaa0d34574df72b3fa6ee257c057d6.10.146.11.36.12611a96f6acf2e74fe28cb90908a9c183862348ce
Vendor states this is fixed in 441aaad150c57edaf57ee482a79a3bf4c5b7e353 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7ba01e0d3539d9cf0aef3e82938f1648147744cc (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 98dbfbb38e297c25c5b0af4a9018d71ac25e8554 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in b3a346d5c99dd73cf84711f2a43e42691990efd2 (fixed)
Affected range stops below 6.11, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.103 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.44 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.1.8 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

Quick Info

StatusRECEIVED

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card