<?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://vulnerability.circl.lu</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>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 12:05:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-40329 — drm/sched: Fix deadlock in drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-40329</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;drm/sched: Fix deadlock in drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Mesa issue referenced below pointed out a possible deadlock:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[ 1231.611031]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[ 1231.611033]        CPU0                    CPU1
[ 1231.611034]        ----                    ----
[ 1231.611035]   lock(&amp;amp;xa-&amp;gt;xa_lock#17);
[ 1231.611038]                                local_irq_disable();
[ 1231.611039]                                lock(&amp;amp;fence-&amp;gt;lock);
[ 1231.611041]                                lock(&amp;amp;xa-&amp;gt;xa_lock#17);
[ 1231.611044]   &amp;lt;Interrupt&amp;gt;
[ 1231.611045]     lock(&amp;amp;fence-&amp;gt;lock);
[ 1231.611047]
                *** DEADLOCK ***&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this example, CPU0 would be any function accessing job-&amp;gt;dependencies
through the xa_* functions that don&amp;#39;t disable interrupts (eg:
drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb()).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CPU1 is executing drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb() as a fence signalling
callback so in an interrupt context. It will deadlock when trying to
grab the xa_lock which is already held by CPU0.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Replacing all xa_* usage by their xa_*_irq counterparts would fix
this issue, but Christian pointed out another issue: dma_fence_signal
takes fence.lock and so does dma_fence_add_callback.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;dma_fence_signal() // locks f1.lock
  -&amp;gt; drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb()
  -&amp;gt; foreach dependencies
     -&amp;gt; dma_fence_add_callback() // locks f2.lock&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This will deadlock if f1 and f2 share the same spin…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;drm/sched: Fix deadlock in drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Mesa issue referenced below pointed out a possible deadlock:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[ 1231.611031]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[ 1231.611033]        CPU0                    CPU1
[ 1231.611034]        ----                    ----
[ 1231.611035]   lock(&amp;amp;xa-&amp;gt;xa_lock#17);
[ 1231.611038]                                local_irq_disable();
[ 1231.611039]                                lock(&amp;amp;fence-&amp;gt;lock);
[ 1231.611041]                                lock(&amp;amp;xa-&amp;gt;xa_lock#17);
[ 1231.611044]   &amp;lt;Interrupt&amp;gt;
[ 1231.611045]     lock(&amp;amp;fence-&amp;gt;lock);
[ 1231.611047]
                *** DEADLOCK ***&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this example, CPU0 would be any function accessing job-&amp;gt;dependencies
through the xa_* functions that don&amp;#39;t disable interrupts (eg:
drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb()).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CPU1 is executing drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb() as a fence signalling
callback so in an interrupt context. It will deadlock when trying to
grab the xa_lock which is already held by CPU0.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Replacing all xa_* usage by their xa_*_irq counterparts would fix
this issue, but Christian pointed out another issue: dma_fence_signal
takes fence.lock and so does dma_fence_add_callback.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;dma_fence_signal() // locks f1.lock
  -&amp;gt; drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb()
  -&amp;gt; foreach dependencies
     -&amp;gt; dma_fence_add_callback() // locks f2.lock&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This will deadlock if f1 and f2 share the same spin…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-40329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
