Independent & educational platform Not a government body. No link or affiliation with any government organisation. Made for learning only. Test only systems you own or are authorised to test. Become a Partner or Sponsor → Full disclaimer

CVE-2026-93168

Severity not reported
Data quality: partial. Some fields were not provided by the source.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: xilinx_dma: Fix CPU stall in xilinx_dma_poll_timeout Currently when calling xi…

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: xilinx_dma: Fix CPU stall in xilinx_dma_poll_timeout Currently when calling xilinx_dma_poll_timeout with delay_us=0 and a condition that is never fulfilled, the CPU busy-waits for prolonged time and the timeout triggers only with a massive delay causing a CPU stall. This happens due to a huge underestimation of wall clock time in poll_timeout_us_atomic. Commit 7349a69cf312 ("iopoll: Do not use timekeeping in read_poll_timeout_atomic()") changed the behavior to no longer use ktime_get at the expense of underestimation of wall clock time which appears to be very large for delay_us=0. Instead of timing out after approximately XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT microseconds, the timeout takes XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT * 1000 * (time that the overhead of the for loop in poll_timeout_us_atomic takes) which is in the range of several minutes for XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT=1000000. Fix this by using a non-zero value for delay_us. Use delay_us=10 to keep the delay in the hot path of starting DMA transfers minimal but still avoid CPU stalls in case of unexpected hardware failures. One-off measurement with delay_us=0 causes the cpu to busy wait around 7 minutes in the timeout case. After applying this patch with delay_us=10 the measured timeout was 1053428 microseconds which is roughly equivalent to the expected 1000000 microseconds specified in XILINX_DMA_LOOP_COUNT. Add a constant XILINX_DMA_POLL_DELAY_US for delay_us value.

CVSS
—
Awaiting analysis by NVD
Timeline (UTC)
Published: 2026-09-17 17:18
Modified: 2026-10-21 13:21
NVD status: Received
Last synced 2 days ago
Verified against the source API 2026-10-27 06:54 UTC
Exploitation
Not listed in CISA KEV (as of last catalog sync)
Absence from KEV does not mean a CVE is not exploited. Exploitation status: unknown (no authoritative evidence in our sources).

Affected products

Not reported by the source (unknown — not "none").

Mitigation & advisories

No vendor advisory or patch reference tagged by NVD. Check the references below.

References

Data sources

NVD CVE API 2.0 — fetched 2026-10-27 06:54 UTC · record ↗

Learn the basics

Understanding CVEs and CVSS Scores