<?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>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:30:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2024-26629 — nfsd: fix RELEASE_LOCKOWNER</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2024-26629</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 TM MFP - GNU/Linux subsystem&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;nfsd: fix RELEASE_LOCKOWNER&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The test on so_count in nfsd4_release_lockowner() is nonsense and
harmful.  Revert to using check_for_locks(), changing that to not sleep.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First: harmful.
As is documented in the kdoc comment for nfsd4_release_lockowner(), the
test on so_count can transiently return a false positive resulting in a
return of NFS4ERR_LOCKS_HELD when in fact no locks are held.  This is
clearly a protocol violation and with the Linux NFS client it can cause
incorrect behaviour.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If RELEASE_LOCKOWNER is sent while some other thread is still
processing a LOCK request which failed because, at the time that request
was received, the given owner held a conflicting lock, then the nfsd
thread processing that LOCK request can hold a reference (conflock) to
the lock owner that causes nfsd4_release_lockowner() to return an
incorrect error.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Linux NFS client ignores that NFS4ERR_LOCKS_HELD error because it
never sends NFS4_RELEASE_LOCKOWNER without first releasing any locks, so
it knows that the error is impossible.  It assumes the lock owner was in
fact released so it feels free to use the same lock owner identifier in
some later locking request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When it does reuse a lock owner identifier for which a previous RELEASE
failed, it will naturally use a lock_seqid of zero.  However the server,
which didn&amp;#39;t release the lock owner, will expect a larger lock_seqid and
so will respond with NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 TM MFP - GNU/Linux subsystem&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;nfsd: fix RELEASE_LOCKOWNER&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The test on so_count in nfsd4_release_lockowner() is nonsense and
harmful.  Revert to using check_for_locks(), changing that to not sleep.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;First: harmful.
As is documented in the kdoc comment for nfsd4_release_lockowner(), the
test on so_count can transiently return a false positive resulting in a
return of NFS4ERR_LOCKS_HELD when in fact no locks are held.  This is
clearly a protocol violation and with the Linux NFS client it can cause
incorrect behaviour.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If RELEASE_LOCKOWNER is sent while some other thread is still
processing a LOCK request which failed because, at the time that request
was received, the given owner held a conflicting lock, then the nfsd
thread processing that LOCK request can hold a reference (conflock) to
the lock owner that causes nfsd4_release_lockowner() to return an
incorrect error.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Linux NFS client ignores that NFS4ERR_LOCKS_HELD error because it
never sends NFS4_RELEASE_LOCKOWNER without first releasing any locks, so
it knows that the error is impossible.  It assumes the lock owner was in
fact released so it feels free to use the same lock owner identifier in
some later locking request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When it does reuse a lock owner identifier for which a previous RELEASE
failed, it will naturally use a lock_seqid of zero.  However the server,
which didn&amp;#39;t release the lock owner, will expect a larger lock_seqid and
so will respond with NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cve-2024-26629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
