CVE-2026-53153
Linux Kernel 6.13 – 6.18.36
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-53153 is a high-severity Missing Synchronization (CWE-820) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 0.9th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-39244
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/list_lru: drain before clearing xarray entry on reparent memcg_reparent_list_lrus() clears the dying memcg's xarray entry with xas_store(&xas, NULL) before reparenting its per-node lists into the parent. This opens a window…
more
where a concurrent list_lru_del() arriving for the dying memcg sees xa_load() == NULL, walks to the parent in lock_list_lru_of_memcg(), takes the parent's per-node lock, and calls list_del_init() on an item still physically linked on the dying memcg's list. If another in-flight thread holds the dying memcg's per-node lock at the same moment (another list_lru_del, or a list_lru_walk_one running an isolate callback), both threads modify ->next/->prev pointers on the same physical list under different locks. Adjacent items can corrupt each other's links. Fix it by reversing the order: reparent each per-node list and mark the child's list lru dead and then clear the xarray entry. Any concurrent list_lru op that finds the still-set xarray entry either takes the dying memcg's per-node lock (synchronizing with the drain) or sees LONG_MIN and walks to the parent, where the items now live.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require proper concurrency controls and synchronization primitives during design and coding.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect missing synchronization through concurrency testing.
Secure SDLC practices can mandate concurrency controls and synchronization primitives.
Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking mechanisms.
Secure architecture principles include proper synchronization for shared resources.
Secure coding standards directly require synchronization primitives to prevent race conditions.