CVE-2026-9771General

LOWCVSS 8.8 · HIGH

Signal is active with 2 mentions in latest observed window

Immediate actions

  • Track advisory updates for patch or workaround availability

Recommended action window: Monitor and triage in normal cycle

NVD description

The flash_copy() system call is verified by z_vrfy_flash_copy() in drivers/flash/flash_util.c. On builds with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled, this handler is the kernel-side trust boundary for a user-mode caller. Prior to the fix it validated only the output buffer (K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE) and passed the two struct device * arguments, src_dev and dst_dev, directly into the implementation without any object validation — unlike every sibling flash syscall, which guards its device pointer with K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH. A user-mode thread fully controls the values of src_dev/dst_dev and the contents of its own address space. The implementation z_impl_flash_copy() dereferences these pointers and calls through their driver-API function tables (e.g. api->get_parameters(dst_dev), flash_read(src_dev, ...), flash_write(dst_dev, ...)). By supplying a pointer to a forged struct device whose api table contains attacker-chosen function pointers, an unprivileged thread can cause the kernel to call arbitrary code in supervisor mode; passing any arbitrary or invalid address otherwise yields a kernel crash or out-of-bounds read. The result is a local privilege escalation out of the userspace sandbox (with kernel denial-of-service and information disclosure as lesser outcomes). The fix adds K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH(src_dev, read) and K_SYSCALL_DRIVER_FLASH(dst_dev, write) to z_vrfy_flash_copy(), which verify each device is a registered flash-driver kernel object the calling thread is permitted to use before any dereference, closing the path completely.

0.0/ 10 priority

Sources & remediation

Weakness type (CWE)
CWE-822CWE-862

Priority

LOW

Exploitation

NONE

PoC

NONE

Patch

NONE

Momentum

NONE

Threat summary

  • 2 mentions across 1 observed day

What's happening

  • Technical details provided in 2 signals
  • General: 2 classified signals
  • 2 total mentions across 1 day

Deep dive

Activity timeline2 mentions / 1d
01122Mentions · 2026-08-17: 2Technical Details · 2026-08-17: 208-17
Signal classification1 categories
General
2100.0%
Referenced assets2 URLs
By indicator
Full discourse2 posts
  • Infoflowcloud@infoflowcloud
    General

    🚨*CVE* CVE-2026-9771 The flash_copy() system call is verified by z_vrfy_flash_copy() in drivers/flash/flash_util.c. On builds with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled, this handler is the kernel-side … https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9771 ----- Traducción: CVE-2026-9771 La … https://infoflow.cloud`

    Post summary

    The post mentions CVE‑2026‑9771 and links to its CVE record, briefly noting the flash_copy system call, but provides no evidence of exploitation, a PoC, or remediation.

    0000021
    100 followersView on X
  • CVE@CVEnew
    General

    CVE-2026-9771 The flash_copy() system call is verified by z_vrfy_flash_copy() in drivers/flash/flash_util.c. On builds with CONFIG_USERSPACE enabled, this handler is the kernel-side … https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-9771

    Post summary

    The post briefly outlines technical aspects of CVE‑2026‑9771 but provides no evidence of exploits, patches, or active use.

    00000870
    58.0K followersView on X

Explore more