GHSA-3QHG-RC86-RH99

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-31 12:30 – Updated: 2026-01-31 12:30
VLAI?
Details

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().

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-71181"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-01-31T12:16:03Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "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().",
  "id": "GHSA-3qhg-rc86-rh99",
  "modified": "2026-01-31T12:30:11Z",
  "published": "2026-01-31T12:30:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-71181"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/30a98c97f7874031f2e1de19c777ce011143cba4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/361e0ff456a8daf9753c18030533256e4133ce7a"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

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…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…