<?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://db.gcve.eu</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>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 23:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2022-49998 — rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg</title>
      <link>https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/cve-2022-49998</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;rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc&amp;#39;s sendmsg&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fix three bugs in the rxrpc&amp;#39;s sendmsg implementation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(1) rxrpc_new_client_call() should release the socket lock when returning
     an error from rxrpc_get_call_slot().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(2) rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr() will return without the call mutex
     held in the event that we&amp;#39;re interrupted by a signal whilst waiting
     for tx space on the socket or relocking the call mutex afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;re return with the lock dropped.  Note that this means
     recvmsg() will not block on this call whilst we&amp;#39;re waiting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thinking on this some more, it might make sense to have different locks for
sendmsg() and recvmsg().  There&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Without fix (2), something like the following can be induced:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!…&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;rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc&amp;#39;s sendmsg&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fix three bugs in the rxrpc&amp;#39;s sendmsg implementation:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(1) rxrpc_new_client_call() should release the socket lock when returning
     an error from rxrpc_get_call_slot().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(2) rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr() will return without the call mutex
     held in the event that we&amp;#39;re interrupted by a signal whilst waiting
     for tx space on the socket or relocking the call mutex afterwards.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#39;re return with the lock dropped.  Note that this means
     recvmsg() will not block on this call whilst we&amp;#39;re waiting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thinking on this some more, it might make sense to have different locks for
sendmsg() and recvmsg().  There&amp;#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Without fix (2), something like the following can be induced:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://db.gcve.eu/vuln/cve-2022-49998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
