Количество 5
Количество 5
CVE-2025-68260
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: fix race condition on death_list Rust Binder contains the following unsafe operation: // SAFETY: A `NodeDeath` is never inserted into the death list // of any node other than its owner, so it is either in this // death list or in no death list. unsafe { node_inner.death_list.remove(self) }; This operation is unsafe because when touching the prev/next pointers of a list element, we have to ensure that no other thread is also touching them in parallel. If the node is present in the list that `remove` is called on, then that is fine because we have exclusive access to that list. If the node is not in any list, then it's also ok. But if it's present in a different list that may be accessed in parallel, then that may be a data race on the prev/next pointers. And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening here. In Node::release, we: 1. Take the lock. 2. Move all items to a local list on the stack. 3. Dro...
CVE-2025-68260
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: fix race condition on death_list Rust Binder contains the following unsafe operation: // SAFETY: A `NodeDeath` is never inserted into the death list // of any node other than its owner, so it is either in this // death list or in no death list. unsafe { node_inner.death_list.remove(self) }; This operation is unsafe because when touching the prev/next pointers of a list element, we have to ensure that no other thread is also touching them in parallel. If the node is present in the list that `remove` is called on, then that is fine because we have exclusive access to that list. If the node is not in any list, then it's also ok. But if it's present in a different list that may be accessed in parallel, then that may be a data race on the prev/next pointers. And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening here. In Node::release, we: 1. Take the lock. 2. Move all items to a local list on the stac
CVE-2025-68260
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: r ...
GHSA-jmw6-v428-xvcr
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: fix race condition on death_list Rust Binder contains the following unsafe operation: // SAFETY: A `NodeDeath` is never inserted into the death list // of any node other than its owner, so it is either in this // death list or in no death list. unsafe { node_inner.death_list.remove(self) }; This operation is unsafe because when touching the prev/next pointers of a list element, we have to ensure that no other thread is also touching them in parallel. If the node is present in the list that `remove` is called on, then that is fine because we have exclusive access to that list. If the node is not in any list, then it's also ok. But if it's present in a different list that may be accessed in parallel, then that may be a data race on the prev/next pointers. And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening here. In Node::release, we: 1. Take the lock. 2. Move all items to a local list on the s...
BDU:2026-00911
Уязвимость драйвера механизма межпроцессного взаимодействия Rust Binder ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании
Уязвимостей на страницу
Уязвимость | CVSS | EPSS | Опубликовано | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2025-68260 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: fix race condition on death_list Rust Binder contains the following unsafe operation: // SAFETY: A `NodeDeath` is never inserted into the death list // of any node other than its owner, so it is either in this // death list or in no death list. unsafe { node_inner.death_list.remove(self) }; This operation is unsafe because when touching the prev/next pointers of a list element, we have to ensure that no other thread is also touching them in parallel. If the node is present in the list that `remove` is called on, then that is fine because we have exclusive access to that list. If the node is not in any list, then it's also ok. But if it's present in a different list that may be accessed in parallel, then that may be a data race on the prev/next pointers. And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening here. In Node::release, we: 1. Take the lock. 2. Move all items to a local list on the stack. 3. Dro... | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | ||
CVE-2025-68260 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: fix race condition on death_list Rust Binder contains the following unsafe operation: // SAFETY: A `NodeDeath` is never inserted into the death list // of any node other than its owner, so it is either in this // death list or in no death list. unsafe { node_inner.death_list.remove(self) }; This operation is unsafe because when touching the prev/next pointers of a list element, we have to ensure that no other thread is also touching them in parallel. If the node is present in the list that `remove` is called on, then that is fine because we have exclusive access to that list. If the node is not in any list, then it's also ok. But if it's present in a different list that may be accessed in parallel, then that may be a data race on the prev/next pointers. And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening here. In Node::release, we: 1. Take the lock. 2. Move all items to a local list on the stac | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | ||
CVE-2025-68260 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: r ... | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | ||
GHSA-jmw6-v428-xvcr In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: fix race condition on death_list Rust Binder contains the following unsafe operation: // SAFETY: A `NodeDeath` is never inserted into the death list // of any node other than its owner, so it is either in this // death list or in no death list. unsafe { node_inner.death_list.remove(self) }; This operation is unsafe because when touching the prev/next pointers of a list element, we have to ensure that no other thread is also touching them in parallel. If the node is present in the list that `remove` is called on, then that is fine because we have exclusive access to that list. If the node is not in any list, then it's also ok. But if it's present in a different list that may be accessed in parallel, then that may be a data race on the prev/next pointers. And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening here. In Node::release, we: 1. Take the lock. 2. Move all items to a local list on the s... | 0% Низкий | около 2 месяцев назад | ||
BDU:2026-00911 Уязвимость драйвера механизма межпроцессного взаимодействия Rust Binder ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 3 месяца назад |
Уязвимостей на страницу