<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-10-02T10:58:35.232614+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-64112</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-64112 — rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap</title>
    <updated>2026-10-02T10:58:35.236212+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap</p>
<p>Given how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are
written, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it's actually needed:
for example in case a new I/O request comes in while we are in the
middle of rbd_acquire_lock() on behalf of another I/O request.  This is
expected and with rbd_release_lock() preemptively canceling lock_dwork
is benign under normal operation.</p>
<p>A more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire():</p>
<p>if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(&amp;rbd_dev-&gt;lock_dwork)) {
            dout("%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\n", __func__, rbd_dev);
            mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev-&gt;task_wq, &amp;rbd_dev-&gt;lock_dwork, 0);
    }</p>
<p>It's not unrealistic for lock_dwork to get canceled right after
delayed_work_pending() returns true and for mod_delayed_work() to
requeue it right there anyway.  This is a classic TOCTOU race.</p>
<p>When it comes to unmapping the image, there is an implicit assumption
of no self-initiated exclusive lock activity past the point of return
from rbd_dev_image_unlock() which unlocks the lock if it happens to be
held.  This unlock is assumed to be final and lock_dwork (as well as
all other exclusive lock tasks, really) isn't expected to get queued
again.  However, lock_dwork is canceled only in cancel_tasks_sync()
(i.e. later in the unmap sequence) and on top of that the cancellation
can get in effect nullified by ma…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-64112"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
