CVE-2026-64099
Is CVE-2026-64099 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:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/v3d: Fix use-after-free of CPU job query arrays on error path The CPU job ioctl's fail label calls kvfree() on cpu_job's timestamp and performance query arrays after v3d_job_cleanup(), which drops the job's last reference and frees cpu_job. Reading cpu_job at that point is a use-after-free. Also, on the early v3d_job_init() failure path, it is a NULL dereference, since v3d_job_deallocate() zeroes the local pointer. In the success path, the arrays are released from the scheduler's .free_job callback, but on the error path, they are freed manually, as the job was never pushed to the scheduler. While the success path deals with this correctly, the fail path doesn't. On top of that, the manual kvfree() calls only free the array storage; they don't drm_syncobj_put() the per-query syncobjs that v3d_timestamp_query_info_free() and v3d_performance_query_info_free() release on the success path. So the same fail path that triggers the use-after-free also leaks one syncobj reference per query. Unify the CPU job teardown into the CPU job's kref destructor, mirroring v3d_render_job_free(). The scheduler's .free_job slot reverts to the generic v3d_sched_job_free() and the fail label drops the manual kvfree() calls, leaving a single teardown path that is reached from both the scheduler and the ioctl error path. That removes the use-after-free, the NULL dereference, and the syncobj leak by construction.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64099)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64099"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64099/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64099"></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 7.8) 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.