CVE Tools

CVE-2026-17052

Missing user-pointer validation in tgpio_pin_read_ts_ec syscall handler allows arbitrary supervisor-memory write from userspace

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 2nd percentile. No fix published yet.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD

What to do

No fixed build or workaround is published yet. Limit exposure and watch for a patch.

What it is

From the CVE record

The Time-aware GPIO syscall verification handler z_vrfy_tgpio_pin_read_ts_ec() in drivers/timeaware_gpio/timeaware_gpio_handlers.c validated only the port device object and passed the caller-supplied timestamp and event_count output pointers to the driver without a K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE() check. The other handlers in the same file (z_vrfy_tgpio_port_get_time(), z_vrfy_tgpio_port_get_cycles_per_second()) already performed that check, so the omission left one syscall unguarded. tgpio_pin_read_ts_ec() is declared __syscall, so with CONFIG_USERSPACE=y an unprivileged user-mode thread that has been granted access to the TGPIO device object can invoke it with arbitrary pointer values. tgpio_intel_read_ts_ec() in drivers/timeaware_gpio/timeaware_gpio_intel.c bounds-checks only the pin index and then unconditionally performs timestamp = ... and event_count = ..., executing two 8-byte stores in supervisor mode at addresses chosen by the user-mode caller. The result is a write-what-where primitive that crosses the userspace/kernel boundary: the target address is fully attacker-chosen and the stored values are the hardware time-capture and event-counter register contents. Corrupting kernel data structures this way can escalate the calling thread to supervisor privilege or crash the system; the device-object permission required is a narrow capability that is not intended to confer any kernel-memory access. The fix adds the two missing K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE() validations before the driver call. Exposure is narrow in practice. Only builds with CONFIG_USERSPACE=y and CONFIG_TIMEAWARE_GPIO=y compile the affected file, and from v3.6.0 onward the file additionally referenced a relocated header (<zephyr/syscall_handler.h>) and removed Z_SYSCALL_* macros, so such a configuration failed to build until those were repaired after v4.4.0. Downstream trees that locally corrected that breakage, and v3.5.0 builds where it did not exist, are the exposed population.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS2nd
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.1% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 2nd percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

5 events over 1 day, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Record updated
  2. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped, record updated

Affected products

Technical detail

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

Scored 7.8 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector LocalRequires local access to the vulnerable system (e.g. local login, malicious file)
  • Attack Complexity LowNo special conditions — the attack can be reliably reproduced
  • Privileges Required LowRequires basic user-level privileges
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
  • Integrity HighTotal loss of integrity — attacker can modify any data in the component
  • Availability HighTotal denial of service — the component is completely unavailable

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Zephyr, not every advisory.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store