<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2026 18:32:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-39915 — net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-39915</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Problem description
===================&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lockdep reports a possible circular locking dependency (AB/BA) between
&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex and &amp;amp;phy-&amp;gt;lock, as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;phylink_resolve() // acquires &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex
-&amp;gt; phylink_major_config()
   -&amp;gt; phy_config_inband() // acquires &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;whereas all the other call sites where &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex and
&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock have the locking scheme reversed. Everywhere else,
&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock is acquired at the top level, and &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex at
the lower level. A clear example is phylink_bringup_phy().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The outlier is the newly introduced phy_config_inband() and the existing
lock order is the correct one. To understand why it cannot be the other
way around, it is sufficient to consider phylink_phy_change(), phylink&amp;#39;s
callback from the PHY device&amp;#39;s phy-&amp;gt;phy_link_change() virtual method,
invoked by the PHY state machine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;phy_link_up() and phy_link_down(), the (indirect) callers of
phylink_phy_change(), are called with &amp;amp;phydev-&amp;gt;lock acquired.
Then phylink_phy_change() acquires its own &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex, to
serialize changes made to its pl-&amp;gt;phy_state and pl-&amp;gt;link_config.
So all other instances of &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex and &amp;amp;phydev-&amp;gt;lock must be
consistent with this order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Problem impact
==============&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think the kernel runs a serious deadlock risk if an existing
phylink_resolve() thread, which results…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Problem description
===================&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lockdep reports a possible circular locking dependency (AB/BA) between
&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex and &amp;amp;phy-&amp;gt;lock, as follows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;phylink_resolve() // acquires &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex
-&amp;gt; phylink_major_config()
   -&amp;gt; phy_config_inband() // acquires &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;whereas all the other call sites where &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex and
&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock have the locking scheme reversed. Everywhere else,
&amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;phydev-&amp;gt;lock is acquired at the top level, and &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex at
the lower level. A clear example is phylink_bringup_phy().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The outlier is the newly introduced phy_config_inband() and the existing
lock order is the correct one. To understand why it cannot be the other
way around, it is sufficient to consider phylink_phy_change(), phylink&amp;#39;s
callback from the PHY device&amp;#39;s phy-&amp;gt;phy_link_change() virtual method,
invoked by the PHY state machine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;phy_link_up() and phy_link_down(), the (indirect) callers of
phylink_phy_change(), are called with &amp;amp;phydev-&amp;gt;lock acquired.
Then phylink_phy_change() acquires its own &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex, to
serialize changes made to its pl-&amp;gt;phy_state and pl-&amp;gt;link_config.
So all other instances of &amp;amp;pl-&amp;gt;state_mutex and &amp;amp;phydev-&amp;gt;lock must be
consistent with this order.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Problem impact
==============&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think the kernel runs a serious deadlock risk if an existing
phylink_resolve() thread, which results…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-39915</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
