https://vulnerability.circl.lu Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Thu, 01 Oct 2026 21:52:32 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-46051 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>md/raid5: fix soft lockup in retry_aligned_read()</p> <p>When retry_aligned_read() encounters an overlapped stripe, it releases the stripe via raid5_release_stripe() which puts it on the lockless released_stripes llist. In the next raid5d loop iteration, release_stripe_list() drains the stripe onto handle_list (since STRIPE_HANDLE is set by the original IO), but retry_aligned_read() runs before handle_active_stripes() and removes the stripe from handle_list via find_get_stripe() -&gt; list_del_init(). This prevents handle_stripe() from ever processing the stripe to resolve the overlap, causing an infinite loop and soft lockup.</p> <p>Fix this by using __release_stripe() with temp_inactive_list instead of raid5_release_stripe() in the failure path, so the stripe does not go through the released_stripes llist. This allows raid5d to break out of its loop, and the overlap will be resolved when the stripe is eventually processed by handle_stripe().</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>md/raid5: fix soft lockup in retry_aligned_read()</p> <p>When retry_aligned_read() encounters an overlapped stripe, it releases the stripe via raid5_release_stripe() which puts it on the lockless released_stripes llist. In the next raid5d loop iteration, release_stripe_list() drains the stripe onto handle_list (since STRIPE_HANDLE is set by the original IO), but retry_aligned_read() runs before handle_active_stripes() and removes the stripe from handle_list via find_get_stripe() -&gt; list_del_init(). This prevents handle_stripe() from ever processing the stripe to resolve the overlap, causing an infinite loop and soft lockup.</p> <p>Fix this by using __release_stripe() with temp_inactive_list instead of raid5_release_stripe() in the failure path, so the stripe does not go through the released_stripes llist. This allows raid5d to break out of its loop, and the overlap will be resolved when the stripe is eventually processed by handle_stripe().</p> https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-46051