CVE-2026-98825

UnknownEPSS 0.20%

Last modified

CVE-2026-98825 is a vulnerability of currently unknown severity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rtc: mpfs: fix unchecked devm_clk_get() error pointer in probe() devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "rtcref")'s return value was passed straight into clk_get_rate() without checking it for an error first, unlike the "rtc" clock a few lines above which is correctly checked with IS_ERR(). clk_get_rate() only guards against a NULL clk, not an error pointer: if (!clk) return 0; ... rate = clk_core_get_rate_recalc(clk->core); so if devm_clk_get() ever returns an error pointer here (for example ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER), which is the normal, expected outcome if the clkcfg clock-provider this RTC depends on has not registered its clocks yet by the time this driver probes), clk_get_rate() dereferences that error pointer instead of returning 0, crashing instead of letting probe defer. Capture the clock in the existing 'clk' local and check it with IS_ERR() before calling clk_get_rate(), matching the handling already used for the "rtc" clock in this same function.. EPSS estimates a 0.20% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rtc: mpfs: fix unchecked devm_clk_get() error pointer in probe() devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "rtcref")'s return value was passed straight into clk_get_rate() without checking it for an error first, unlike the "rtc" clock a few lines above which is correctly checked with IS_ERR(). clk_get_rate() only guards against a NULL clk, not an error pointer: if (!clk) return 0; ... rate = clk_core_get_rate_recalc(clk->core); so if devm_clk_get() ever returns an error pointer here (for example ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER), which is the normal, expected outcome if the clkcfg clock-provider this RTC depends on has not registered its clocks yet by the time this driver probes), clk_get_rate() dereferences that error pointer instead of returning 0, crashing instead of letting probe defer. Capture the clock in the existing 'clk' local and check it with IS_ERR() before calling clk_get_rate(), matching the handling already used for the "rtc" clock in this same function.

Metrics

EPSS Probability
0.20%

9.8th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Affected Software

Source: CNA advisory (CVE.org). NVD analysis pending.

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux>= 0b31d703598dc1993867597bbd45e87d824fc427, < 7f59e824a4403e156cf930fe556b75139452099e; >= 0b31d703598dc1993867597bbd45e87d824fc427, < ab741d1b714b4acc605f3d14cdc4120f87341ed1; >= 0b31d703598dc1993867597bbd45e87d824fc427, < 74dc7c52946e3d47c40edd0875adb7cc15937066; >= 0b31d703598dc1993867597bbd45e87d824fc427, < cfd70c9b19846c524f2b6195a7484bdf22071ccf; >= 0b31d703598dc1993867597bbd45e87d824fc427, < 8a03f8422fa08eed335c51bccb612a3d81739ff2; >= 0b31d703598dc1993867597bbd45e87d824fc427, < ac41b05d15db3134e839148290d67415ee0bdb58
LinuxLinux6.0

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Received

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-98825?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rtc: mpfs: fix unchecked devm_clk_get() error pointer in probe() devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "rtcref")'s return value was passed straight into clk_get_rate() without checking it for an error first, unlike the "rtc" clock a few lines above which is correctly checked with IS_ERR(). clk_get_rate() only guards against a NULL clk, not an error pointer: if (!clk) return 0; ... rate = clk_core_get_rate_recalc(clk->core); so if devm_clk_get() ever returns an error pointer here (for example ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER), which is the normal, expected outcome if the clkcfg clock-provider this RTC depends on has not registered its clocks yet by the time this driver probes), clk_get_rate() dereferences that error pointer instead of returning 0, crashing instead of letting probe defer. Capture the clock in the existing 'clk' local and check it with IS_ERR() before calling clk_get_rate(), matching the handling already used for the "rtc" clock in this same function.
How severe is CVE-2026-98825?
Severity scoring for CVE-2026-98825 is pending analysis. The EPSS model estimates a 0.20% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2026-98825?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

How Strix Helps

Related CVEs from 2026

Are you affected by CVE-2026-98825?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST