CVE-2026-68200

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

ALSA: timer: dont re-enter an instance callback that is still running

The userspace-driven timer (utimer) TRIGGER ioctl calls snd_timer_interrupt() directly with no serialization, so two threads triggering the same utimer can run snd_timer_interrupt() on one snd_timer concurrently.

snd_timer_process_callbacks() drops timer->lock around each instance callback and marks the in-flight callback with the single SNDRV_TIMER_IFLG_CALLBACK bit; snd_timer_close_locked() waits on that bit to drain an in-flight callback before freeing the instance. The bit cannot represent two concurrent callbacks: when a second interrupt re-queues an instance whose callback is still running, both run at once, the first to finish clears the bit, and the close-path drain then frees the instance (and its callback_data) while the other callback is still live - a use-after-free reachable by any user able to open /dev/snd/timer, both via a user timer instance and via a sequencer queue timer bound to the utimer.

snd_timer_interrupt() sets IFLG_CALLBACK before dropping timer->lock, so a concurrent interrupt already observes it under the lock. Skip re-queuing an instance (and its slaves) to the ack/sack list while its callback is in flight; the accumulated pticks are delivered on the next tick, so no event is lost.

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Potential Mitigations

• Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
• Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/26.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/29.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1395327a96614885552bae5fbb650e6dd182d49b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/70d28bfcd6224eed75986b3b987b997e59643fa4
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/996c24377eea4d4506b7c3ccbbf1e490440b5e0b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c1078130a4cd7e738f4b73afe99b3e68cbfbf884