<?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>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 21:22:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-43106 — cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-43106</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;cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the &amp;#39;rep&amp;#39; dentry.  Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call.  It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().&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;cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the &amp;#39;rep&amp;#39; dentry.  Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call.  It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-43106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
