Skip to content

CVE-2026-53326

Is CVE-2026-53326 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
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-667
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: debugobjects: Don't call fill_pool() in early boot hardirq context When booting a debug PREEMPT_RT kernel on an ARM64 system, a "inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage" lockdep warning message was reported to the console. During early boot, interrupts are enabled before the scheduler is enabled. In this window (before SYSTEM_SCHEDULING is set) interrupts can fire and in the hard interrupt context handler attempt to fill the pool This can lead to a deadlock when the interrupt occurred when the interrupt hits a region which holds a lock that is required to be taken in the allocation path. Add a new can_fill_pool() helper and reorder the exception rule and forbid this scenario by excluding allocations from hard interrupt context.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53326
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53326/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53326)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53326"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53326/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53326"></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

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-667.