FKIE_CVE-2025-71181

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: rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page() When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes like the following: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO -------------------------------------------- kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230 but task is already holding lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&l->lock); lock(&l->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 3 locks held by kswapd0/68: #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160 #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230 To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page().
References
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/30a98c97f7874031f2e1de19c777ce011143cba4
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/361e0ff456a8daf9753c18030533256e4133ce7a
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nrust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page()\n\nWhen forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit\nfb56fdf8b9a2 (\"mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope\") into\naccount, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback\nwhen I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes\nlike the following:\n\n\t============================================\n\tWARNING: possible recursive locking detected\n\t6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G          IO\n\t--------------------------------------------\n\tkswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock:\n\tffff956000fa18b0 (\u0026l-\u003elock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230\n\n\tbut task is already holding lock:\n\tffff956000fa18b0 (\u0026l-\u003elock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20\n\n\tother info that might help us debug this:\n\t Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n\t       CPU0\n\t       ----\n\t  lock(\u0026l-\u003elock);\n\t  lock(\u0026l-\u003elock);\n\n\t *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n\t May be due to missing lock nesting notation\n\n\t3 locks held by kswapd0/68:\n\t #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160\n\t #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (\u0026l-\u003elock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20\n\t #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230\n\nTo fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page()."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "En el kernel de Linux, la siguiente vulnerabilidad ha sido resuelta:\n\nrust_binder: eliminar spin_lock() en rust_shrink_free_page()\n\nAl portar Rust Binder a la versi\u00f3n 6.18, descuid\u00e9 tener en cuenta el commit fb56fdf8b9a2 (\u0027mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope\u0027), y aparentemente no termin\u00e9 ejecutando la devoluci\u00f3n de llamada del reductor cuando prob\u00e9 la cordura del controlador antes de la entrega. Esto lleva a fallos como el siguiente:\n\n\t============================================\n\tADVERTENCIA: posible bloqueo recursivo detectado\n\t6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G          IO\n\t--------------------------------------------\n\tkswapd0/68 est\u00e1 intentando adquirir el bloqueo:\n\tffff956000fa18b0 (\u0026amp;l-\u0026gt;lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, en: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230\n\n\tpero la tarea ya est\u00e1 manteniendo el bloqueo:\n\tffff956000fa18b0 (\u0026amp;l-\u0026gt;lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, en: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20\n\n\totra informaci\u00f3n que podr\u00eda ayudarnos a depurar esto:\n\t Posible escenario de bloqueo inseguro:\n\n\t       CPU0\n\t       ----\n\t  lock(\u0026amp;l-\u0026gt;lock);\n\t  lock(\u0026amp;l-\u0026gt;lock);\n\n\t * INTERBLOQUEO *\n\n\t Puede deberse a la falta de notaci\u00f3n de anidamiento de bloqueo\n\n\t3 bloqueos mantenidos por kswapd0/68:\n\t #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: kswapd+0x597/0x1160\n\t #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (\u0026amp;l-\u0026gt;lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, en: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20\n\t #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, en: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230\n\nPara solucionar esto, elimine la llamada a spin_lock() de rust_shrink_free_page()."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2025-71181",
  "lastModified": "2026-02-03T16:44:36.630",
  "metrics": {},
  "published": "2026-01-31T12:16:03.353",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/30a98c97f7874031f2e1de19c777ce011143cba4"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/361e0ff456a8daf9753c18030533256e4133ce7a"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.