CVE-2026-63883
Is CVE-2026-63883 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
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:L
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: qcom_geni: fix kfifo underflow when flush precedes DMA completion IRQ When uart_flush_buffer() runs before the DMA completion IRQ is delivered, the following race can occur (all steps serialized by uart_port_lock): 1. DMA starts: tx_remaining = N, kfifo contains N bytes 2. DMA completes in hardware; IRQ is pending but not yet delivered 3. uart_flush_buffer() acquires the port lock and calls kfifo_reset(), making kfifo_len() = 0 while tx_remaining remains N 4. uart_flush_buffer() releases the port lock 5. DMA IRQ fires; handle_tx_dma() acquires the port lock and calls uart_xmit_advance(uport, tx_remaining) on an empty kfifo uart_xmit_advance() increments kfifo->out by tx_remaining. Since kfifo_reset() already set both in and out to 0, out wraps past in, causing kfifo_len() to return UART_XMIT_SIZE - tx_remaining. The next start_tx_dma() call then submits a DMA transfer of stale buffer data. Fix this by snapshotting kfifo_len() at the start of handle_tx_dma() and skipping uart_xmit_advance() when fifo_len < tx_remaining, which indicates the kfifo was reset by a preceding flush.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63883)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63883"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-63883/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-63883"></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 verdictsCurated 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
This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.3) 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.