CVE-2025-40201

CVE-2025-40201

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kernel/sys.c: fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() paths The usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64()->do_prlimit() path is very broken. sys_prlimit64() does get_task_struct(tsk) but this only protects task_struct itself. If tsk != current and tsk is not a leader, this process can exit/exec and task_lock(tsk->group_leader) may use the already freed task_struct. Another problem is that sys_prlimit64() can race with mt-exec which changes ->group_leader. In this case do_prlimit() may take the wrong lock, or (worse) ->group_leader may change between task_lock() and task_unlock(). Change sys_prlimit64() to take tasklist_lock when necessary. This is not nice, but I don't see a better fix for -stable.

CVE-2025-40201

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kernel/sys.c: fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() paths The usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64()->do_prlimit() path is very broken. sys_prlimit64() does get_task_struct(tsk) but this only protects task_struct itself. If tsk != current and tsk is not a leader, this process can exit/exec and task_lock(tsk->group_leader) may use the already freed task_struct. Another problem is that sys_prlimit64() can race with mt-exec which changes ->group_leader. In this case do_prlimit() may take the wrong lock, or (worse) ->group_leader may change between task_lock() and task_unlock(). Change sys_prlimit64() to take tasklist_lock when necessary. This is not nice, but I don't see a better fix for -stable.

CVE-2025-40201

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kernel/sys.c: fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() paths The usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64()->do_prlimit() path is very broken. sys_prlimit64() does get_task_struct(tsk) but this only protects task_struct itself. If tsk != current and tsk is not a leader, this process can exit/exec and task_lock(tsk->group_leader) may use the already freed task_struct. Another problem is that sys_prlimit64() can race with mt-exec which changes ->group_leader. In this case do_prlimit() may take the wrong lock, or (worse) ->group_leader may change between task_lock() and task_unlock(). Change sys_prlimit64() to take tasklist_lock when necessary. This is not nice, but I don't see a better fix for -stable.

CVE-2025-40201

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

GHSA-r7m4-wpp2-9f3x

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kernel/sys.c: fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() paths The usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64()->do_prlimit() path is very broken. sys_prlimit64() does get_task_struct(tsk) but this only protects task_struct itself. If tsk != current and tsk is not a leader, this process can exit/exec and task_lock(tsk->group_leader) may use the already freed task_struct. Another problem is that sys_prlimit64() can race with mt-exec which changes ->group_leader. In this case do_prlimit() may take the wrong lock, or (worse) ->group_leader may change between task_lock() and task_unlock(). Change sys_prlimit64() to take tasklist_lock when necessary. This is not nice, but I don't see a better fix for -stable.