GHSA-9W39-MW48-92GC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-18 18:31 – Updated: 2026-10-15 03:35
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: add proper RCU protection to /proc/net/ptype

Yin Fengwei reported an RCU stall in ptype_seq_show() and provided a patch.

Real issue is that ptype_seq_next() and ptype_seq_show() violate RCU rules.

ptype_seq_show() runs under rcu_read_lock(), and reads pt->dev to get device name without any barrier.

At the same time, concurrent writers can remove a packet_type structure (which is correctly freed after an RCU grace period) and clear pt->dev without an RCU grace period.

Define ptype_iter_state to carry a dev pointer along seq_net_private:

struct ptype_iter_state { struct seq_net_private p; struct net_device *dev; // added in this patch };

We need to record the device pointer in ptype_get_idx() and ptype_seq_next() so that ptype_seq_show() is safe against concurrent pt->dev changes.

We also need to add full RCU protection in ptype_seq_next(). (Missing READ_ONCE() when reading list.next values)

Many thanks to Dong Chenchen for providing a repro.

Severity
5.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-23255"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-03-18T18:16:23Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet: add proper RCU protection to /proc/net/ptype\n\nYin Fengwei reported an RCU stall in ptype_seq_show() and provided\na patch.\n\nReal issue is that ptype_seq_next() and ptype_seq_show() violate\nRCU rules.\n\nptype_seq_show() runs under rcu_read_lock(), and reads pt-\u003edev\nto get device name without any barrier.\n\nAt the same time, concurrent writers can remove a packet_type structure\n(which is correctly freed after an RCU grace period) and clear pt-\u003edev\nwithout an RCU grace period.\n\nDefine ptype_iter_state to carry a dev pointer along seq_net_private:\n\nstruct ptype_iter_state {\n\tstruct seq_net_private\tp;\n\tstruct net_device\t*dev; // added in this patch\n};\n\nWe need to record the device pointer in ptype_get_idx() and\nptype_seq_next() so that ptype_seq_show() is safe against\nconcurrent pt-\u003edev changes.\n\nWe also need to add full RCU protection in ptype_seq_next().\n(Missing READ_ONCE() when reading list.next values)\n\nMany thanks to Dong Chenchen for providing a repro.",
  "id": "GHSA-9w39-mw48-92gc",
  "modified": "2026-10-15T03:35:19Z",
  "published": "2026-03-18T18:31:17Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-23255"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-019113.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-457936.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-784472.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/002a73470b56848e4c81efeaaedd471e92d66d8d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/589a530ae44d0c80f523fcfd1a15af8087f27d35"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dcefd3f0b9ed8288654c75254bdcee8e1085e861"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e974a10a52618f7f57a4bce173a0ed96acd4e5dc"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f613e8b4afea0cd17c7168e8b00e25bc8d33175d"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

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.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.