<?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, 05 Oct 2026 01:12:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>bdu:2024-09780</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2024-09780</link>
      <description>bdu:2024-09780</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2024-09780</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EUVD-2026-344626</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-344626</link>
      <description>EUVD-2026-344626</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-344626</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2022-48950</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2022-48950</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;perf: Fix perf_pending_task() UaF&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per syzbot it is possible for perf_pending_task() to run after the
event is free()&amp;#39;d. There are two related but distinct cases:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- the task_work was already queued before destroying the event;
 - destroying the event itself queues the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first cannot be solved using task_work_cancel() since
perf_release() itself might be called from a task_work (____fput),
which means the current-&amp;gt;task_works list is already empty and
task_work_cancel() won&amp;#39;t be able to find the perf_pending_task()
entry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The simplest alternative is extending the perf_event lifetime to cover
the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second is just silly, queueing a task_work while you know the
event is going away makes no sense and is easily avoided by
re-arranging how the event is marked STATE_DEAD and ensuring it goes
through STATE_OFF on the way down.&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;perf: Fix perf_pending_task() UaF&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per syzbot it is possible for perf_pending_task() to run after the
event is free()&amp;#39;d. There are two related but distinct cases:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- the task_work was already queued before destroying the event;
 - destroying the event itself queues the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first cannot be solved using task_work_cancel() since
perf_release() itself might be called from a task_work (____fput),
which means the current-&amp;gt;task_works list is already empty and
task_work_cancel() won&amp;#39;t be able to find the perf_pending_task()
entry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The simplest alternative is extending the perf_event lifetime to cover
the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second is just silly, queueing a task_work while you know the
event is going away makes no sense and is easily avoided by
re-arranging how the event is marked STATE_DEAD and ensuring it goes
through STATE_OFF on the way down.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2022-48950</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-qw38-ppmm-fjpw</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-qw38-ppmm-fjpw</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;perf: Fix perf_pending_task() UaF&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per syzbot it is possible for perf_pending_task() to run after the
event is free()&amp;#39;d. There are two related but distinct cases:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- the task_work was already queued before destroying the event;
 - destroying the event itself queues the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first cannot be solved using task_work_cancel() since
perf_release() itself might be called from a task_work (____fput),
which means the current-&amp;gt;task_works list is already empty and
task_work_cancel() won&amp;#39;t be able to find the perf_pending_task()
entry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The simplest alternative is extending the perf_event lifetime to cover
the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second is just silly, queueing a task_work while you know the
event is going away makes no sense and is easily avoided by
re-arranging how the event is marked STATE_DEAD and ensuring it goes
through STATE_OFF on the way down.&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;perf: Fix perf_pending_task() UaF&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Per syzbot it is possible for perf_pending_task() to run after the
event is free()&amp;#39;d. There are two related but distinct cases:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- the task_work was already queued before destroying the event;
 - destroying the event itself queues the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The first cannot be solved using task_work_cancel() since
perf_release() itself might be called from a task_work (____fput),
which means the current-&amp;gt;task_works list is already empty and
task_work_cancel() won&amp;#39;t be able to find the perf_pending_task()
entry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The simplest alternative is extending the perf_event lifetime to cover
the task_work.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The second is just silly, queueing a task_work while you know the
event is going away makes no sense and is easily avoided by
re-arranging how the event is marked STATE_DEAD and ensuring it goes
through STATE_OFF on the way down.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-qw38-ppmm-fjpw</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RHSA-2023:6583 — security update for kernel</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhsa-2023:6583</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;security update for kernel&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;security update for kernel&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhsa-2023:6583</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2022-48950</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2022-48950</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 148 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf: Fix perf_pending_task() UaF Per syzbot it is possible for perf_pending_task() to run after the event is free()&amp;#39;d. There are two related but distinct cases:  - the task_work was already queued before destroying the event;  - destroying the event itself queues the task_work. The first cannot be solved using task_work_cancel() since perf_release() itself might be called from a task_work (____fput), which means the current-&amp;gt;task_works list is already empty and task_work_cancel() won&amp;#39;t be able to find the perf_pending_task() entry. The simplest alternative is extending the perf_event lifetime to cover the task_work. The second is just silly, queueing a task_work while you know the event is going away makes no sense and is easily avoided by re-arranging how the event is marked STATE_DEAD and ensuring it goes through STATE_OFF on the way down.&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 148 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf: Fix perf_pending_task() UaF Per syzbot it is possible for perf_pending_task() to run after the event is free()&amp;#39;d. There are two related but distinct cases:  - the task_work was already queued before destroying the event;  - destroying the event itself queues the task_work. The first cannot be solved using task_work_cancel() since perf_release() itself might be called from a task_work (____fput), which means the current-&amp;gt;task_works list is already empty and task_work_cancel() won&amp;#39;t be able to find the perf_pending_task() entry. The simplest alternative is extending the perf_event lifetime to cover the task_work. The second is just silly, queueing a task_work while you know the event is going away makes no sense and is easily avoided by re-arranging how the event is marked STATE_DEAD and ensuring it goes through STATE_OFF on the way down.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2022-48950</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2024-3251 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen Denial of Service</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2024-3251</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen oder andere, nicht näher bekannte Auswirkungen zu erzielen..&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen oder andere, nicht näher bekannte Auswirkungen zu erzielen..&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2024-3251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
