<?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>2026-09-29T17:55:38.236334+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-2025-71180</id>
    <title>CVE-2025-71180 — counter: interrupt-cnt: Drop IRQF_NO_THREAD flag</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T17:55:38.237694+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>counter: interrupt-cnt: Drop IRQF_NO_THREAD flag</p>
<p>An IRQ handler can either be IRQF_NO_THREAD or acquire spinlock_t, as
CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING warns:
=============================
[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
6.18.0-rc1+git... #1
-----------------------------
some-user-space-process/1251 is trying to lock:
(&amp;counter-&gt;events_list_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: counter_push_event [counter]
other info that might help us debug this:
context-{2:2}
no locks held by some-user-space-process/....
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 1251 Comm: some-user-space-process 6.18.0-rc1+git... #1 PREEMPT
Call trace:
 show_stack (C)
 dump_stack_lvl
 dump_stack
 __lock_acquire
 lock_acquire
 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
 counter_push_event [counter]
 interrupt_cnt_isr [interrupt_cnt]
 __handle_irq_event_percpu
 handle_irq_event
 handle_simple_irq
 handle_irq_desc
 generic_handle_domain_irq
 gpio_irq_handler
 handle_irq_desc
 generic_handle_domain_irq
 gic_handle_irq
 call_on_irq_stack
 do_interrupt_handler
 el0_interrupt
 __el0_irq_handler_common
 el0t_64_irq_handler
 el0t_64_irq</p>
<p>... and Sebastian correctly points out. Remove IRQF_NO_THREAD as an
alternative to switching to raw_spinlock_t, because the latter would limit
all potential nested locks to raw_spinlock_t only.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-71180"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
