FKIE_CVE-2025-71180
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-01-31 12:16 - Updated: 2026-02-03 16:44
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
counter: interrupt-cnt: Drop IRQF_NO_THREAD flag
An IRQ handler can either be IRQF_NO_THREAD or acquire spinlock_t, as
CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING warns:
=============================
[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
6.18.0-rc1+git... #1
-----------------------------
some-user-space-process/1251 is trying to lock:
(&counter->events_list_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: counter_push_event [counter]
other info that might help us debug this:
context-{2:2}
no locks held by some-user-space-process/....
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 1251 Comm: some-user-space-process 6.18.0-rc1+git... #1 PREEMPT
Call trace:
show_stack (C)
dump_stack_lvl
dump_stack
__lock_acquire
lock_acquire
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
counter_push_event [counter]
interrupt_cnt_isr [interrupt_cnt]
__handle_irq_event_percpu
handle_irq_event
handle_simple_irq
handle_irq_desc
generic_handle_domain_irq
gpio_irq_handler
handle_irq_desc
generic_handle_domain_irq
gic_handle_irq
call_on_irq_stack
do_interrupt_handler
el0_interrupt
__el0_irq_handler_common
el0t_64_irq_handler
el0t_64_irq
... and Sebastian correctly points out. Remove IRQF_NO_THREAD as an
alternative to switching to raw_spinlock_t, because the latter would limit
all potential nested locks to raw_spinlock_t only.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ncounter: interrupt-cnt: Drop IRQF_NO_THREAD flag\n\nAn IRQ handler can either be IRQF_NO_THREAD or acquire spinlock_t, as\nCONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING warns:\n=============================\n[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]\n6.18.0-rc1+git... #1\n-----------------------------\nsome-user-space-process/1251 is trying to lock:\n(\u0026counter-\u003eevents_list_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: counter_push_event [counter]\nother info that might help us debug this:\ncontext-{2:2}\nno locks held by some-user-space-process/....\nstack backtrace:\nCPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 1251 Comm: some-user-space-process 6.18.0-rc1+git... #1 PREEMPT\nCall trace:\n show_stack (C)\n dump_stack_lvl\n dump_stack\n __lock_acquire\n lock_acquire\n _raw_spin_lock_irqsave\n counter_push_event [counter]\n interrupt_cnt_isr [interrupt_cnt]\n __handle_irq_event_percpu\n handle_irq_event\n handle_simple_irq\n handle_irq_desc\n generic_handle_domain_irq\n gpio_irq_handler\n handle_irq_desc\n generic_handle_domain_irq\n gic_handle_irq\n call_on_irq_stack\n do_interrupt_handler\n el0_interrupt\n __el0_irq_handler_common\n el0t_64_irq_handler\n el0t_64_irq\n\n... and Sebastian correctly points out. Remove IRQF_NO_THREAD as an\nalternative to switching to raw_spinlock_t, because the latter would limit\nall potential nested locks to raw_spinlock_t only."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2025-71180",
"lastModified": "2026-02-03T16:44:36.630",
"metrics": {},
"published": "2026-01-31T12:16:02.997",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1c5a3175aecf82cd86dfcbef2a23e8b26d8d8e7c"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/23f9485510c338476b9735d516c1d4aacb810d46"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/425886b1f8304621b3f16632b274357067d5f13f"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/49a66829dd3653695e60d7cae13521d131362fcd"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/51d2e5d6491447258cb39ff1deb93df15d3c23cb"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ef668c9a2261ec9287faba6e6ef05a98b391aa2b"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…