<?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>2026-10-07T10:26:22.396290+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/cve-2022-48760</id>
    <title>CVE-2022-48760 — USB: core: Fix hang in usb_kill_urb by adding memory barriers</title>
    <updated>2026-10-07T10:26:22.413143+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>USB: core: Fix hang in usb_kill_urb by adding memory barriers</p>
<p>The syzbot fuzzer has identified a bug in which processes hang waiting
for usb_kill_urb() to return.  It turns out the issue is not unlinking
the URB; that works just fine.  Rather, the problem arises when the
wakeup notification that the URB has completed is not received.</p>
<p>The reason is memory-access ordering on SMP systems.  In outline form,
usb_kill_urb() and __usb_hcd_giveback_urb() operating concurrently on
different CPUs perform the following actions:</p>
<p>CPU 0					CPU 1
----------------------------		---------------------------------
usb_kill_urb():				__usb_hcd_giveback_urb():
  ...					  ...
  atomic_inc(&amp;urb-&gt;reject);		  atomic_dec(&amp;urb-&gt;use_count);
  ...					  ...
  wait_event(usb_kill_urb_queue,
	atomic_read(&amp;urb-&gt;use_count) == 0);
					  if (atomic_read(&amp;urb-&gt;reject))
						wake_up(&amp;usb_kill_urb_queue);</p>
<p>Confining your attention to urb-&gt;reject and urb-&gt;use_count, you can
see that the overall pattern of accesses on CPU 0 is:</p>
<p>write urb-&gt;reject, then read urb-&gt;use_count;</p>
<p>whereas the overall pattern of accesses on CPU 1 is:</p>
<p>write urb-&gt;use_count, then read urb-&gt;reject.</p>
<p>This pattern is referred to in memory-model circles as SB (for "Store
Buffering"), and it is well known that without suitable enforcement of
the desired order of accesses -- in the form of memory barriers -- it
is entirely possible for one or both CPUs to execute their r…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2022-48760"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
