<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T02:34:09.600998+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-42239</id>
    <title>CVE-2024-42239 — bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T02:34:09.603462+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled</p>
<p>Given a schedule:</p>
<p>timer1 cb			timer2 cb</p>
<p>bpf_timer_cancel(timer2);	bpf_timer_cancel(timer1);</p>
<p>Both bpf_timer_cancel calls would wait for the other callback to finish
executing, introducing a lockup.</p>
<p>Add an atomic_t count named 'cancelling' in bpf_hrtimer. This keeps
track of all in-flight cancellation requests for a given BPF timer.
Whenever cancelling a BPF timer, we must check if we have outstanding
cancellation requests, and if so, we must fail the operation with an
error (-EDEADLK) since cancellation is synchronous and waits for the
callback to finish executing. This implies that we can enter a deadlock
situation involving two or more timer callbacks executing in parallel
and attempting to cancel one another.</p>
<p>Note that we avoid incrementing the cancelling counter for the target
timer (the one being cancelled) if bpf_timer_cancel is not invoked from
a callback, to avoid spurious errors. The whole point of detecting
cur-&gt;cancelling and returning -EDEADLK is to not enter a busy wait loop
(which may or may not lead to a lockup). This does not apply in case the
caller is in a non-callback context, the other side can continue to
cancel as it sees fit without running into errors.</p>
<p>Background on prior attempts:</p>
<p>Earlier versions of this patch used a bool 'cancelling' bit and used the
following pattern under timer-&gt;lock to publish cancellation statu…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-42239"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
