<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 23:33:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-38282 — kernfs: Relax constraint in draining guard</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-38282</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;kernfs: Relax constraint in draining guard&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The active reference lifecycle provides the break/unbreak mechanism but
the active reference is not truly active after unbreak -- callers don&amp;#39;t
use it afterwards but it&amp;#39;s important for proper pairing of kn-&amp;gt;active
counting. Assuming this mechanism is in place, the WARN check in
kernfs_should_drain_open_files() is too sensitive -- it may transiently
catch those (rightful) callers between
kernfs_unbreak_active_protection() and kernfs_put_active() as found out by Chen
Ridong:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;kernfs_remove_by_name_ns	kernfs_get_active // active=1
	__kernfs_remove					  // active=0x80000002
	kernfs_drain			...
	wait_event
	//waiting (active == 0x80000001)
					kernfs_break_active_protection
					// active = 0x80000001
	// continue
					kernfs_unbreak_active_protection
					// active = 0x80000002
	...
	kernfs_should_drain_open_files
	// warning occurs
					kernfs_put_active&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To avoid the false positives (mind panic_on_warn) remove the check altogether.
(This is meant as quick fix, I think active reference break/unbreak may be
simplified with larger rework.)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;kernfs: Relax constraint in draining guard&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The active reference lifecycle provides the break/unbreak mechanism but
the active reference is not truly active after unbreak -- callers don&amp;#39;t
use it afterwards but it&amp;#39;s important for proper pairing of kn-&amp;gt;active
counting. Assuming this mechanism is in place, the WARN check in
kernfs_should_drain_open_files() is too sensitive -- it may transiently
catch those (rightful) callers between
kernfs_unbreak_active_protection() and kernfs_put_active() as found out by Chen
Ridong:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;kernfs_remove_by_name_ns	kernfs_get_active // active=1
	__kernfs_remove					  // active=0x80000002
	kernfs_drain			...
	wait_event
	//waiting (active == 0x80000001)
					kernfs_break_active_protection
					// active = 0x80000001
	// continue
					kernfs_unbreak_active_protection
					// active = 0x80000002
	...
	kernfs_should_drain_open_files
	// warning occurs
					kernfs_put_active&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To avoid the false positives (mind panic_on_warn) remove the check altogether.
(This is meant as quick fix, I think active reference break/unbreak may be
simplified with larger rework.)&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-38282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
