<?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>2026-10-01T22:08:24.377088+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-2026-43203</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-43203 — atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal</title>
    <updated>2026-10-01T22:08:24.944248+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>atm: fore200e: fix use-after-free in tasklets during device removal</p>
<p>When the PCA-200E or SBA-200E adapter is being detached, the fore200e
is deallocated. However, the tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet may still be running
or pending, leading to use-after-free bug when the already freed fore200e
is accessed again in fore200e_tx_tasklet() or fore200e_rx_tasklet().</p>
<p>One of the race conditions can occur as follows:</p>
<p>CPU 0 (cleanup)           | CPU 1 (tasklet)
fore200e_pca_remove_one() | fore200e_interrupt()
  fore200e_shutdown()     |   tasklet_schedule()
    kfree(fore200e)       | fore200e_tx_tasklet()
                          |   fore200e-&gt; // UAF</p>
<p>Fix this by ensuring tx_tasklet or rx_tasklet is properly canceled before
the fore200e is released. Add tasklet_kill() in fore200e_shutdown() to
synchronize with any pending or running tasklets. Moreover, since
fore200e_reset() could prevent further interrupts or data transfers,
the tasklet_kill() should be placed after fore200e_reset() to prevent
the tasklet from being rescheduled in fore200e_interrupt(). Finally,
it only needs to do tasklet_kill() when the fore200e state is greater
than or equal to FORE200E_STATE_IRQ, since tasklets are uninitialized
in earlier states. In a word, the tasklet_kill() should be placed in
the FORE200E_STATE_IRQ branch within the switch...case structure.</p>
<p>This bug was identified through static analysis.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-43203"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
