CVE-2026-87039

What it is

The user-mode syscall verifier z_vrfy_i2s_configure() in drivers/i2s/i2s_handlers.c copies the caller's struct i2s_config in from user memory and then, when cfg->frame_clk_freq is 0 (the API's "unconfigure the stream" request), jumps straight to z_impl_i2s_configure() without performing the K_SYSCALL_OBJ(config.mem_slab, K_OBJ_MEM_SLAB) ownership/type check or the block_size sanity check. The mem_slab field is a struct k_mem_slab *, so on that path a completely unvalidated, user-chosen pointer reaches driver code that is entitled to trust it as a real kernel object. Any thread running under CONFIG_USERSPACE that has access to an I2S device object can trigger this with a single i2s_configure() call. Most in-tree drivers special-case frame_clk_freq == 0 and never store the caller's structure, but drivers/i2s/i2s_litex.c does not: i2s_litex_configure() only logs a warning for a mismatched frame clock, then memcpy()s the caller's config into stream->cfg and marks the stream I2S_STATE_READY. A subsequent i2s_trigger() with I2S_TRIGGER_START enables the FIFO interrupt, and the interrupt handlers i2s_litex_isr_rx() / i2s_litex_isr_tx() then call k_mem_slab_alloc() and k_mem_slab_free() on the attacker-supplied pointer in supervisor context. The result is an arbitrary-pointer read/write primitive executed by the kernel on behalf of an unprivileged thread — k_mem_slab_alloc() takes a spinlock at slab->lock and reads and writes slab->free_list and the link word inside the returned "block" — which defeats the CONFIG_USERSPACE isolation boundary entirely. The same missing validation is a hazard for out-of-tree I2S drivers that retain the configuration on the unconfigure path. Builds without CONFIG_USERSPACE are unaffected, since the verifier is not used. The fix zeroes config.mem_slab and config.block_size on the unconfigure path so the driver can never receive an unvalidated pointer, while still allowing a stream to be unconfigured by a caller that does not own a memory slab, as the API documents.

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.1% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

1. 2026-09-08 18:40 UTC ReservedThe CVE id was reserved by its CNA
2. 2026-11-04 06:17 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
3. 2026-11-04 06:17 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.1% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
• Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.

Details

Published

2026-11-04 06:17 UTC

Last modified

2026-11-04 06:17 UTC

Exploit probability

0.1% · EPSS, next 30 days

Weakness

CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds write

Record status

Awaiting Analysis

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8

Attack vector

Local

Complexity

High

Privileges needed

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Changed

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-87039.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-87039. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge