{
  "affected": [
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "urgency": "not yet assigned"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Debian:12",
        "name": "linux"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "6.1.176-1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "urgency": "not yet assigned"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Debian:13",
        "name": "linux"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "6.12.94-1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "urgency": "not yet assigned"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Debian:14",
        "name": "linux"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "7.0.13-1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:  slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl-\u003elock  During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.  But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e. slim_controller then tx_lock).  The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:    rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock:   ffff00009793e620 (\u0026ctrl-\u003elock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus    but task is already holding lock:   ffff00009793fb50 (\u0026ctrl-\u003etx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl    which lock already depends on the new lock.    Possible unsafe locking scenario:          CPU0                    CPU1         ----                    ----    lock(\u0026ctrl-\u003etx_lock);                                 lock(\u0026ctrl-\u003elock);                                 lock(\u0026ctrl-\u003etx_lock);    lock(\u0026ctrl-\u003elock);  The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction. But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().  Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn down, all child devices are notified that the slimbus is gone and the child devices are removed.  Stop taking the tx_lock in qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify() to avoid the deadlock.",
  "id": "DEBIAN-CVE-2026-53331",
  "modified": "2026-09-14T16:47:30.802400378Z",
  "published": "2026-07-01T14:16:40.997Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-53331"
    }
  ],
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "upstream": [
    "CVE-2026-53331"
  ]
}