<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T02:41:41.713405+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-23103</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-23103 — ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T02:41:42.155687+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518F-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIPLUS S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port</p>
<p>Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev.</p>
<p>Initial code seems to be written in the assumption,
that any address change must occur under RTNL.
But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So</p>
<p>1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock.</p>
<p>2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten
to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close)</p>
<p>This appears to be a very minor problem though.
Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will
be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless,
this could cause:</p>
<p>1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface
iterated through all port-&gt;ipvlans + ipvlan-&gt;addrs
under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP
under its own lock. Though this is only possible
for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be
called without rtnl_lock.</p>
<p>2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under
different ipvlan-&gt;addrs_lock locks</p>
<p>This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP
is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast
paths.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-23103"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
