<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://db.gcve.eu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-28T23:56:08.484149+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@gcve.eu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://db.gcve.eu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/cve-2022-49998</id>
    <title>CVE-2022-49998 — rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg</title>
    <updated>2026-09-28T23:56:08.485965+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg</p>
<p>Fix three bugs in the rxrpc's sendmsg implementation:</p>
<p>(1) rxrpc_new_client_call() should release the socket lock when returning
     an error from rxrpc_get_call_slot().</p>
<p>(2) rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr() will return without the call mutex
     held in the event that we're interrupted by a signal whilst waiting
     for tx space on the socket or relocking the call mutex afterwards.</p>
<p>Fix this by: (a) moving the unlock/lock of the call mutex up to
     rxrpc_send_data() such that the lock is not held around all of
     rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window*() and (b) indicating to higher callers
     whether we're return with the lock dropped.  Note that this means
     recvmsg() will not block on this call whilst we're waiting.</p>
<p>(3) After dropping and regaining the call mutex, rxrpc_send_data() needs
     to go and recheck the state of the tx_pending buffer and the
     tx_total_len check in case we raced with another sendmsg() on the same
     call.</p>
<p>Thinking on this some more, it might make sense to have different locks for
sendmsg() and recvmsg().  There's probably no need to make recvmsg() wait
for sendmsg().  It does mean that recvmsg() can return MSG_EOR indicating
that a call is dead before a sendmsg() to that call returns - but that can
currently happen anyway.</p>
<p>Without fix (2), something like the following can be induced:</p>
<p>WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/cve-2022-49998"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
