Skip to content

CVE-2026-45885

Use After Free: is CVE-2026-45885real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Base severity
7.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-416 · Use After Free
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Linux

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: power: supply: cpcap-battery: Fix use-after-free in power_supply_changed() Using the `devm_` variant for requesting IRQ _before_ the `devm_` variant for allocating/registering the `power_supply` handle, means that the `power_supply` handle will be deallocated/unregistered _before_ the interrupt handler (since `devm_` naturally deallocates in reverse allocation order). This means that during removal, there is a race condition where an interrupt can fire just _after_ the `power_supply` handle has been freed, *but* just _before_ the corresponding unregistration of the IRQ handler has run. This will lead to the IRQ handler calling `power_supply_changed()` with a freed `power_supply` handle. Which usually crashes the system or otherwise silently corrupts the memory... Note that there is a similar situation which can also happen during `probe()`; the possibility of an interrupt firing _before_ registering the `power_supply` handle. This would then lead to the nasty situation of using the `power_supply` handle *uninitialized* in `power_supply_changed()`. Fix this racy use-after-free by making sure the IRQ is requested _after_ the registration of the `power_supply` handle.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45885
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45885/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45885)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45885"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45885/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45885"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

0 verdicts
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-416 · Use After Free.