<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:38.162263+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>csirt@opendfir.org</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43472</id>
    <title>BELL-CVE-2026-43472</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.018786+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43472"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0696</id>
    <title>certfr-2026-avi-0696 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux de Debian LTS. Certaines d'entre elles permettent à…</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.018873+00:00</updated>
    <content>certfr-2026-avi-0696</content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0696"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-315962</id>
    <title>EUVD-2026-315962</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.018895+00:00</updated>
    <content>EUVD-2026-315962</content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-315962"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43472</id>
    <title>fkie_cve-2026-43472</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.018907+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>unshare: fix unshare_fs() handling</p>
<p>There's an unpleasant corner case in unshare(2), when we have a
CLONE_NEWNS in flags and current-&gt;fs hadn't been shared at all; in that
case copy_mnt_ns() gets passed current-&gt;fs instead of a private copy,
which causes interesting warts in proof of correctness]</p>
<p>&gt; I guess if private means fs-&gt;users == 1, the condition could still be true.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it's worse than just a convoluted proof of correctness.
Consider the case when we have CLONE_NEWCGROUP in addition to CLONE_NEWNS
(and current-&gt;fs-&gt;users == 1).</p>
<p>We pass current-&gt;fs to copy_mnt_ns(), all right.  Suppose it succeeds and
flips current-&gt;fs-&gt;{pwd,root} to corresponding locations in the new namespace.
Now we proceed to copy_cgroup_ns(), which fails (e.g. with -ENOMEM).
We call put_mnt_ns() on the namespace created by copy_mnt_ns(), it's
destroyed and its mount tree is dissolved, but...  current-&gt;fs-&gt;root and
current-&gt;fs-&gt;pwd are both left pointing to now detached mounts.</p>
<p>They are pinning those, so it's not a UAF, but it leaves the calling
process with unshare(2) failing with -ENOMEM _and_ leaving it with
pwd and root on detached isolated mounts.  The last part is clearly a bug.</p>
<p>There is other fun related to that mess (races with pivot_root(), including
the one between pivot_root() and fork(), of all things), but this one
is easy to isolate and fix - treat CLONE_NEWNS as "allocate a new
fs_struct even if it h…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43472"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-vgv8-2mh4-qh7r</id>
    <title>GHSA-vgv8-2mh4-qh7r</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.018957+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>unshare: fix unshare_fs() handling</p>
<p>There's an unpleasant corner case in unshare(2), when we have a
CLONE_NEWNS in flags and current-&gt;fs hadn't been shared at all; in that
case copy_mnt_ns() gets passed current-&gt;fs instead of a private copy,
which causes interesting warts in proof of correctness]</p>
<p>&gt; I guess if private means fs-&gt;users == 1, the condition could still be true.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it's worse than just a convoluted proof of correctness.
Consider the case when we have CLONE_NEWCGROUP in addition to CLONE_NEWNS
(and current-&gt;fs-&gt;users == 1).</p>
<p>We pass current-&gt;fs to copy_mnt_ns(), all right.  Suppose it succeeds and
flips current-&gt;fs-&gt;{pwd,root} to corresponding locations in the new namespace.
Now we proceed to copy_cgroup_ns(), which fails (e.g. with -ENOMEM).
We call put_mnt_ns() on the namespace created by copy_mnt_ns(), it's
destroyed and its mount tree is dissolved, but...  current-&gt;fs-&gt;root and
current-&gt;fs-&gt;pwd are both left pointing to now detached mounts.</p>
<p>They are pinning those, so it's not a UAF, but it leaves the calling
process with unshare(2) failing with -ENOMEM _and_ leaving it with
pwd and root on detached isolated mounts.  The last part is clearly a bug.</p>
<p>There is other fun related to that mess (races with pivot_root(), including
the one between pivot_root() and fork(), of all things), but this one
is easy to isolate and fix - treat CLONE_NEWNS as "allocate a new
fs_struct even if it h…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-vgv8-2mh4-qh7r"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2026-2493</id>
    <title>OESA-2026-2493 — kernel security update</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.018993+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> openEuler:24.03-LTS: kernel</p>
<p>The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself.

Security Fix(es):</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>scsi: target: Fix recursive locking in __configfs_open_file()</p>
<p>In flush_write_buffer, &amp;amp;p-&amp;gt;frag_sem is acquired and then the loaded store
function is called, which, here, is target_core_item_dbroot_store().  This
function called filp_open(), following which these functions were called
(in reverse order), according to the call trace:</p>
<p>down_read
  __configfs_open_file
  do_dentry_open
  vfs_open
  do_open
  path_openat
  do_filp_open
  file_open_name
  filp_open
  target_core_item_dbroot_store
  flush_write_buffer
  configfs_write_iter</p>
<p>target_core_item_dbroot_store() tries to validate the new file path by
trying to open the file path provided to it; however, in this case, the bug
report shows:</p>
<p>db_root: not a directory: /sys/kernel/config/target/dbroot</p>
<p>indicating that the same configfs file was tried to be opened, on which it
is currently working on. Thus, it is trying to acquire frag_sem semaphore
of the same file of which it already holds the semaphore obtained in
flush_write_buffer(), leading to acquiring the semaphore in a nested manner
and a possibility of recursive locking.</p>
<p>Fix this by modifying target_core_item_dbroot_store() to use kern_path()
instead of filp_open() to avoid opening the file using filesystem-specific
function __configfs_open_file(), and further modifying it to make this fix
compatible.(CVE-2026-23292)…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2026-2493"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:21555-1</id>
    <title>openSUSE-SU-2026:21555-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.019186+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:21555-1"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:22521-1</id>
    <title>SUSE-SU-2026:22521-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.019708+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:22521-1"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43472</id>
    <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2026-43472</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.019772+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-lts-xenial, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws-hwe, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe and 232 more</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: unshare: fix unshare_fs() handling There's an unpleasant corner case in unshare(2), when we have a CLONE_NEWNS in flags and current-&gt;fs hadn't been shared at all; in that case copy_mnt_ns() gets passed current-&gt;fs instead of a private copy, which causes interesting warts in proof of correctness] &gt; I guess if private means fs-&gt;users == 1, the condition could still be true. Unfortunately, it's worse than just a convoluted proof of correctness. Consider the case when we have CLONE_NEWCGROUP in addition to CLONE_NEWNS (and current-&gt;fs-&gt;users == 1). We pass current-&gt;fs to copy_mnt_ns(), all right.  Suppose it succeeds and flips current-&gt;fs-&gt;{pwd,root} to corresponding locations in the new namespace. Now we proceed to copy_cgroup_ns(), which fails (e.g. with -ENOMEM). We call put_mnt_ns() on the namespace created by copy_mnt_ns(), it's destroyed and its mount tree is dissolved, but...  current-&gt;fs-&gt;root and current-&gt;fs-&gt;pwd are both left pointing to now detached mounts. They are pinning those, so it's not a UAF, but it leaves the calling process with unshare(2) failing with -ENOMEM _and_ leaving it with pwd and root on detached isolated mounts.  The last part is clearly a bug. There is other fun related to that mess (races with pivot_root(), including the one between pivot_root() and fork(), of all things), but this one is easy to isolate and fix - treat CLONE_NEWNS as "allocate a new fs_struct even if it hadn't b…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43472"/>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1454</id>
    <title>WID-SEC-W-2026-1454 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
    <updated>2026-10-03T14:09:39.020035+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen, möglicherweise Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen, Daten zu manipulieren oder offenzulegen oder einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu verursachen.</p>
      </div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1454"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
