BDU:2025-12265

CVE-2025-21809

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers. Now, when an rxrpc_peer object runs out of refs, it gets removed from the peer hash table and, for that, rxrpc has to take a spinlock. However, it is now being called from afs's RCU cleanup, which takes place in BH context - but it is just taking an ordinary spinlock. The put may also be called from non-BH context, and so there exists the possibility of deadlock if the BH-based RCU cleanup happens whilst the hash spinlock is held. This led to the attached lockdep complaint. Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.13.0-rc5-build2+ #1223 Tainted: G E ------------------...

CVE-2025-21809

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers. Now, when an rxrpc_peer object runs out of refs, it gets removed from the peer hash table and, for that, rxrpc has to take a spinlock. However, it is now being called from afs's RCU cleanup, which takes place in BH context - but it is just taking an ordinary spinlock. The put may also be called from non-BH context, and so there exists the possibility of deadlock if the BH-based RCU cleanup happens whilst the hash spinlock is held. This led to the attached lockdep complaint. Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.13.0-rc5-build2+ #1223 Tainted: G E ------------------...

CVE-2025-21809

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers. Now, when an rxrpc_peer object runs out of refs, it gets removed from the peer hash table and, for that, rxrpc has to take a spinlock. However, it is now being called from afs's RCU cleanup, which takes place in BH context - but it is just taking an ordinary spinlock. The put may also be called from non-BH context, and so there exists the possibility of deadlock if the BH-based RCU cleanup happens whilst the hash spinlock is held. This led to the attached lockdep complaint. Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.13.0-rc5-build2+ #1223 Tainted: G E

CVE-2025-21809

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: r ...

GHSA-4fj4-ghwr-gjf7

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rxrpc, afs: Fix peer hash locking vs RCU callback In its address list, afs now retains pointers to and refs on one or more rxrpc_peer objects. The address list is freed under RCU and at this time, it puts the refs on those peers. Now, when an rxrpc_peer object runs out of refs, it gets removed from the peer hash table and, for that, rxrpc has to take a spinlock. However, it is now being called from afs's RCU cleanup, which takes place in BH context - but it is just taking an ordinary spinlock. The put may also be called from non-BH context, and so there exists the possibility of deadlock if the BH-based RCU cleanup happens whilst the hash spinlock is held. This led to the attached lockdep complaint. Fix this by changing spinlocks of rxnet->peer_hash_lock back to BH-disabling locks. ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.13.0-rc5-build2+ #1223 Tainted: G E ...