Most recent entries from all

bdu:2025-12265

BELL-CVE-2025-21809

Affected: Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts

certfr-2025-avi-0625 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans Ubuntu Ubuntu. Certaines d'entre elles permettent à un attaquant d…

certfr-2025-avi-0625

EUVD-2026-346673

fkie_cve-2025-21809

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback

In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers.

Now, when an rxrpc_peer object runs out of refs, it gets removed from the peer hash table and, for that, rxrpc has to take a spinlock. However, it is now being called from afs's RCU cleanup, which takes place in BH context - but it is just taking an ordinary spinlock.

The put may also be called from non-BH context, and so there exists the possibility of deadlock if the BH-based RCU cleanup happens whilst the hash spinlock is held. This led to the attached lockdep complaint.

Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks.

================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.13.0-rc5-build2+ #1223 Tainted: G E -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. swapper/1/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff88810babe228 (&rxnet->peer_hash_lock){+.?.}-{3:3}, at: rxrpc_put_peer+0xcb/0x180 {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: mark_usage+0x164/0x180 __lock_acquire+0x544/0x990 lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 rxrpc_peer_keepalive_worker+0x144/0x440 process_one_work+0x486/0x7c0 process_sc…

GHSA-4fj4-ghwr-gjf7

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback

In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers.

Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks.

UBUNTU-CVE-2025-21809

Affected: Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 106 more

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers. Now, when an rxrpc_peer object runs out of refs, it gets removed from the peer hash table and, for that, rxrpc has to take a spinlock. However, it is now being called from afs's RCU cleanup, which takes place in BH context - but it is just taking an ordinary spinlock. The put may also be called from non-BH context, and so there exists the possibility of deadlock if the BH-based RCU cleanup happens whilst the hash spinlock is held. This led to the attached lockdep complaint. Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.13.0-rc5-build2+ #1223 Tainted: G E -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. swapper/1/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff88810babe228 (&rxnet->peer_hash_lock){+.?.}-{3:3}, at: rxrpc_put_peer+0xcb/0x180 {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: mark_usage+0x164/0x180 __lock_acquire+0x544/0x990 lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 rxrpc_peer_keepalive_worker+0x144/0x440 process_one_work+0x486/0x7c0 process_schedule…

WID-SEC-W-2025-0461 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen und um nicht näher spezifizierte Auswirkungen zu erzielen.