<?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>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 09:00:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-64112 — rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-64112</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;rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are
written, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire():&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(&amp;amp;rbd_dev-&amp;gt;lock_dwork)) {
            dout(&amp;#34;%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\n&amp;#34;, __func__, rbd_dev);
            mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev-&amp;gt;task_wq, &amp;amp;rbd_dev-&amp;gt;lock_dwork, 0);
    }&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;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…&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;rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are
written, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire():&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(&amp;amp;rbd_dev-&amp;gt;lock_dwork)) {
            dout(&amp;#34;%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\n&amp;#34;, __func__, rbd_dev);
            mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev-&amp;gt;task_wq, &amp;amp;rbd_dev-&amp;gt;lock_dwork, 0);
    }&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;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…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-64112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
