<?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>Sun, 04 Oct 2026 00:20:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-39905 — net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl-&gt;phydev writes with resolver</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-39905</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;net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl-&amp;gt;phydev writes with resolver&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently phylink_resolve() protects itself against concurrent
phylink_bringup_phy() or phylink_disconnect_phy() calls which modify
pl-&amp;gt;phydev by relying on pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problem is that in phylink_resolve(), pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex is in a lock
inversion state with pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock. So pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock needs to be
acquired prior to pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex. But that requires dereferencing
pl-&amp;gt;phydev in the first place, and without pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex, that is
racy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hence the reason for the extra lock. Currently it is redundant, but it
will serve a functional purpose once mutex_lock(&amp;amp;phy-&amp;gt;lock) will be
moved outside of the mutex_lock(&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex) section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another alternative considered would have been to let phylink_resolve()
acquire the rtnl_mutex, which is also held when phylink_bringup_phy()
and phylink_disconnect_phy() are called. But since phylink_disconnect_phy()
runs under rtnl_lock(), it would deadlock with phylink_resolve() when
calling flush_work(&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;resolve). Additionally, it would have been
undesirable because it would have unnecessarily blocked many other call
paths as well in the entire kernel, so the smaller-scoped lock was
preferred.&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;net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl-&amp;gt;phydev writes with resolver&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently phylink_resolve() protects itself against concurrent
phylink_bringup_phy() or phylink_disconnect_phy() calls which modify
pl-&amp;gt;phydev by relying on pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problem is that in phylink_resolve(), pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex is in a lock
inversion state with pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock. So pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock needs to be
acquired prior to pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex. But that requires dereferencing
pl-&amp;gt;phydev in the first place, and without pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex, that is
racy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hence the reason for the extra lock. Currently it is redundant, but it
will serve a functional purpose once mutex_lock(&amp;amp;phy-&amp;gt;lock) will be
moved outside of the mutex_lock(&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex) section.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another alternative considered would have been to let phylink_resolve()
acquire the rtnl_mutex, which is also held when phylink_bringup_phy()
and phylink_disconnect_phy() are called. But since phylink_disconnect_phy()
runs under rtnl_lock(), it would deadlock with phylink_resolve() when
calling flush_work(&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;resolve). Additionally, it would have been
undesirable because it would have unnecessarily blocked many other call
paths as well in the entire kernel, so the smaller-scoped lock was
preferred.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-39905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
