https://cve.radiocsirt.org Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Sat, 03 Oct 2026 10:57:12 +0000 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-11427 bdu:2026-11427 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-11427 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2025-68358 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2025-68358 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0166 certfr-2026-avi-0166 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2026-avi-0166 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-315135 EUVD-2026-315135 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-315135 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2025-68358 <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full()</p> <p>From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees:</p> <p>(*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms.</p> <p>(*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.</p> <p>btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush:</p> <p>struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ...</p> <p>Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfi…</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full()</p> <p>From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees:</p> <p>(*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms.</p> <p>(*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.</p> <p>btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush:</p> <p>struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ...</p> <p>Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfi…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2025-68358 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-2m44-r2x5-4q79 <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full()</p> <p>From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees:</p> <p>(*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms.</p> <p>(*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.</p> <p>btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush:</p> <p>struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ...</p> <p>Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfi…</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full()</p> <p>From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees:</p> <p>(*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms.</p> <p>(*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.</p> <p>btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush:</p> <p>struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ...</p> <p>Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfi…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-2m44-r2x5-4q79 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2025-68358 msrc_CVE-2025-68358 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2025-68358 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:10039-1 <p>kernel-devel-6.18.5-1.1 on GA media</p> <p>kernel-devel-6.18.5-1.1 on GA media</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2026:10039-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:23881-1 <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p> <p>Security update for the Linux Kernel</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2026:23881-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2025-68358 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-azure, 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, Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-oracle, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0 and 225 more</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full() From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees: (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms. (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field. btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush: struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ... Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfield mem…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-azure, 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, Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-oracle, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0 and 225 more</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full() From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees: (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms. (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field. btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush: struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ... Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfield mem…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2025-68358 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2025-2920 <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux-Kernel ausnutzen, um nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, die möglicherweise zu einer Denial-of-Service- Bedingung führen oder eine Speicherbeschädigung verursachen können.</p> <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux-Kernel ausnutzen, um nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen, die möglicherweise zu einer Denial-of-Service- Bedingung führen oder eine Speicherbeschädigung verursachen können.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2025-2920