Skip to content

CVE-2026-52976

Use After Free: Is CVE-2026-52976 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.8 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
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 →

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: drm/xe: Fix error cleanup in xe_exec_queue_create_ioctl() Two error handling issues exist in xe_exec_queue_create_ioctl(): 1. When xe_hw_engine_group_add_exec_queue() fails, the error path jumps to put_exec_queue which skips xe_exec_queue_kill(). If the VM is in preempt fence mode, xe_vm_add_compute_exec_queue() has already added the queue to the VM's compute exec queue list. Skipping the kill leaves the queue on that list, leading to a dangling pointer after the queue is freed. 2. When xa_alloc() fails after xe_hw_engine_group_add_exec_queue() has succeeded, the error path does not call xe_hw_engine_group_del_exec_queue() to remove the queue from the hw engine group list. The queue is then freed while still linked into the hw engine group, causing a use-after-free. Fix both by: - Changing the xe_hw_engine_group_add_exec_queue() failure path to jump to kill_exec_queue so that xe_exec_queue_kill() properly removes the queue from the VM's compute list. - Adding a del_hw_engine_group label before kill_exec_queue for the xa_alloc() failure path, which removes the queue from the hw engine group before proceeding with the rest of the cleanup. (cherry picked from commit 37c831f401746a45d510b312b0ed7a77b1e06ec8)

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52976
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52976/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52976)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52976"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-52976/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-52976"></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?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

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.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-416 · Use After Free.