<?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 02:20:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-90001 — HID: bpf: serialize device reference release in struct_ops destroy path</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-90001</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;HID: bpf: serialize device reference release in struct_ops destroy path&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;__hid_bpf_ops_destroy_device() and hid_bpf_unreg() can race on the
same registration reference, double-putting struct hid_device and
freeing it while hid_destroy_device() still uses it.  Serialize the
remove/NULL decision under hdev-&amp;gt;bpf.prog_list_lock so exactly one
path releases each registration reference: unreg re-checks ops-&amp;gt;hdev
under the lock and returns without putting when the destroy path
already cleared it; all put_device() calls happen after the lock is
dropped, which is safe because a concurrent unreg then observes
ops-&amp;gt;hdev == NULL under the lock.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Background: each successful attach (hid_bpf_ops_reg) acquires one
device reference (hid_get_device()).  Two paths can release it:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- device destruction: hid_destroy_device() -&amp;gt; hid_bpf_destroy_device()
  -&amp;gt; __hid_bpf_ops_destroy_device(), which walks hdev-&amp;gt;bpf.prog_list
  under rcu_read_lock() and drops one reference per attached program;
- BPF link release: bpf map delete (no BPF_F_LINK) synchronously calls
  st_ops-&amp;gt;unreg() -&amp;gt; hid_bpf_unreg(), which drops the reference for
  its own registration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The coordination handshake (e-&amp;gt;hdev = NULL on the destroy side vs
&amp;#34;if (!hdev) return&amp;#34; on the unreg side) is a TOCTOU check: the two
paths run under different lock domains (rcu_read_lock vs
prog_list_lock), so a concurrent unreg can read ops-&amp;gt;hdev as
non-NULL, block on prog_list_lock…&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;HID: bpf: serialize device reference release in struct_ops destroy path&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;__hid_bpf_ops_destroy_device() and hid_bpf_unreg() can race on the
same registration reference, double-putting struct hid_device and
freeing it while hid_destroy_device() still uses it.  Serialize the
remove/NULL decision under hdev-&amp;gt;bpf.prog_list_lock so exactly one
path releases each registration reference: unreg re-checks ops-&amp;gt;hdev
under the lock and returns without putting when the destroy path
already cleared it; all put_device() calls happen after the lock is
dropped, which is safe because a concurrent unreg then observes
ops-&amp;gt;hdev == NULL under the lock.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Background: each successful attach (hid_bpf_ops_reg) acquires one
device reference (hid_get_device()).  Two paths can release it:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;- device destruction: hid_destroy_device() -&amp;gt; hid_bpf_destroy_device()
  -&amp;gt; __hid_bpf_ops_destroy_device(), which walks hdev-&amp;gt;bpf.prog_list
  under rcu_read_lock() and drops one reference per attached program;
- BPF link release: bpf map delete (no BPF_F_LINK) synchronously calls
  st_ops-&amp;gt;unreg() -&amp;gt; hid_bpf_unreg(), which drops the reference for
  its own registration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The coordination handshake (e-&amp;gt;hdev = NULL on the destroy side vs
&amp;#34;if (!hdev) return&amp;#34; on the unreg side) is a TOCTOU check: the two
paths run under different lock domains (rcu_read_lock vs
prog_list_lock), so a concurrent unreg can read ops-&amp;gt;hdev as
non-NULL, block on prog_list_lock…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-90001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
