https://cve.radiocsirt.org Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Sun, 04 Oct 2026 09:09:14 +0000 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43106 <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2026-43106 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-347829 EUVD-2026-347829 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-347829 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43106 <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()</p> <p>The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2 references to the &#39;rep&#39; dentry. Three of the callers were changed to use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those cases the call gets the expected references.</p> <p>However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered. It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is that a reference is lost.</p> <p>To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull() must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by cachefiles_bury_object().</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()</p> <p>The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2 references to the &#39;rep&#39; dentry. Three of the callers were changed to use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those cases the call gets the expected references.</p> <p>However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered. It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is that a reference is lost.</p> <p>To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull() must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by cachefiles_bury_object().</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2026-43106 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-frxf-jp28-379q <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()</p> <p>The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2 references to the &#39;rep&#39; dentry. Three of the callers were changed to use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those cases the call gets the expected references.</p> <p>However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered. It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is that a reference is lost.</p> <p>To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull() must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by cachefiles_bury_object().</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()</p> <p>The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2 references to the &#39;rep&#39; dentry. Three of the callers were changed to use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those cases the call gets the expected references.</p> <p>However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered. It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is that a reference is lost.</p> <p>To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull() must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by cachefiles_bury_object().</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-frxf-jp28-379q https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43106 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> 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 86 more</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull() The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2 references to the &#39;rep&#39; dentry. Three of the callers were changed to use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those cases the call gets the expected references. However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered. It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is that a reference is lost. To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull() must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by cachefiles_bury_object().</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> 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 86 more</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull() The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2 references to the &#39;rep&#39; dentry. Three of the callers were changed to use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those cases the call gets the expected references. However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered. It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is that a reference is lost. To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull() must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by cachefiles_bury_object().</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2026-43106 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1385 <p>Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service zu verursachen, Informationen offenzulegen, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen oder potentiell beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen.</p> <p>Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service zu verursachen, Informationen offenzulegen, Sicherheitsmaßnahmen zu umgehen oder potentiell beliebigen Programmcode auszuführen.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2026-1385