<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 10:04:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>bdu:2026-02631</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-02631</link>
      <description>bdu:2026-02631</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-02631</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EUVD-2026-310790</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-310790</link>
      <description>EUVD-2026-310790</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-310790</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2022-49765</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2022-49765</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa&amp;#39;s suggested
patch[1] (slightly reworded):
syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2],
for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using
spin_lock_irqsave() on &amp;#34;struct p9_client&amp;#34;-&amp;gt;lock but trans_fd
(not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in
trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s lock by a new one specific to the
transport (client.c&amp;#39;s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations,
while trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s protects its own req list and request status field
that acts as the transport&amp;#39;s state machine)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa&amp;#39;s suggested
patch[1] (slightly reworded):
syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2],
for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using
spin_lock_irqsave() on &amp;#34;struct p9_client&amp;#34;-&amp;gt;lock but trans_fd
(not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in
trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s lock by a new one specific to the
transport (client.c&amp;#39;s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations,
while trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s protects its own req list and request status field
that acts as the transport&amp;#39;s state machine)&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2022-49765</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-5rmr-vqfv-62q6</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-5rmr-vqfv-62q6</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa&amp;#39;s suggested
patch[1] (slightly reworded):
syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2],
for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using
spin_lock_irqsave() on &amp;#34;struct p9_client&amp;#34;-&amp;gt;lock but trans_fd
(not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in
trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s lock by a new one specific to the
transport (client.c&amp;#39;s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations,
while trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s protects its own req list and request status field
that acts as the transport&amp;#39;s state machine)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa&amp;#39;s suggested
patch[1] (slightly reworded):
syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2],
for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using
spin_lock_irqsave() on &amp;#34;struct p9_client&amp;#34;-&amp;gt;lock but trans_fd
(not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in
trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s lock by a new one specific to the
transport (client.c&amp;#39;s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations,
while trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s protects its own req list and request status field
that acts as the transport&amp;#39;s state machine)&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-5rmr-vqfv-62q6</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2022-49765</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2022-49765</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; 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 150 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa&amp;#39;s suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on &amp;#34;struct p9_client&amp;#34;-&amp;gt;lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock(). Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c&amp;#39;s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport&amp;#39;s state machine)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; 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 150 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/9p: use a dedicated spinlock for trans_fd Shamelessly copying the explanation from Tetsuo Handa&amp;#39;s suggested patch[1] (slightly reworded): syzbot is reporting inconsistent lock state in p9_req_put()[2], for p9_tag_remove() from p9_req_put() from IRQ context is using spin_lock_irqsave() on &amp;#34;struct p9_client&amp;#34;-&amp;gt;lock but trans_fd (not from IRQ context) is using spin_lock(). Since the locks actually protect different things in client.c and in trans_fd.c, just replace trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s lock by a new one specific to the transport (client.c&amp;#39;s protect the idr for fid/tag allocations, while trans_fd.c&amp;#39;s protects its own req list and request status field that acts as the transport&amp;#39;s state machine)&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2022-49765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
