<?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>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 04:29:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-37988 — fix a couple of races in MNT_TREE_BENEATH handling by do_move_mount()</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-37988</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;fix a couple of races in MNT_TREE_BENEATH handling by do_move_mount()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Normally do_lock_mount(path, _) is locking a mountpoint pinned by
*path and at the time when matching unlock_mount() unlocks that
location it is still pinned by the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, for &amp;#39;beneath&amp;#39; case it&amp;#39;s no longer that simple -
the object being locked is not the one *path points to.  It&amp;#39;s the
mountpoint of path-&amp;gt;mnt.  The thing is, without sufficient locking
-&amp;gt;mnt_parent may change under us and none of the locks are held
at that point.  The rules are
	* mount_lock stabilizes m-&amp;gt;mnt_parent for any mount m.
	* namespace_sem stabilizes m-&amp;gt;mnt_parent, provided that
m is mounted.
	* if either of the above holds and refcount of m is positive,
we are guaranteed the same for refcount of m-&amp;gt;mnt_parent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;namespace_sem nests inside inode_lock(), so do_lock_mount() has
to take inode_lock() before grabbing namespace_sem.  It does
recheck that path-&amp;gt;mnt is still mounted in the same place after
getting namespace_sem, and it does take care to pin the dentry.
It is needed, since otherwise we might end up with racing mount --move
(or umount) happening while we were getting locks; in that case
dentry would no longer be a mountpoint and could&amp;#39;ve been evicted
on memory pressure along with its inode - not something you want
when grabbing lock on that inode.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, pinning a dentry is not enough - the matching mount is
also pinned only by the f…&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;fix a couple of races in MNT_TREE_BENEATH handling by do_move_mount()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Normally do_lock_mount(path, _) is locking a mountpoint pinned by
*path and at the time when matching unlock_mount() unlocks that
location it is still pinned by the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, for &amp;#39;beneath&amp;#39; case it&amp;#39;s no longer that simple -
the object being locked is not the one *path points to.  It&amp;#39;s the
mountpoint of path-&amp;gt;mnt.  The thing is, without sufficient locking
-&amp;gt;mnt_parent may change under us and none of the locks are held
at that point.  The rules are
	* mount_lock stabilizes m-&amp;gt;mnt_parent for any mount m.
	* namespace_sem stabilizes m-&amp;gt;mnt_parent, provided that
m is mounted.
	* if either of the above holds and refcount of m is positive,
we are guaranteed the same for refcount of m-&amp;gt;mnt_parent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;namespace_sem nests inside inode_lock(), so do_lock_mount() has
to take inode_lock() before grabbing namespace_sem.  It does
recheck that path-&amp;gt;mnt is still mounted in the same place after
getting namespace_sem, and it does take care to pin the dentry.
It is needed, since otherwise we might end up with racing mount --move
(or umount) happening while we were getting locks; in that case
dentry would no longer be a mountpoint and could&amp;#39;ve been evicted
on memory pressure along with its inode - not something you want
when grabbing lock on that inode.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, pinning a dentry is not enough - the matching mount is
also pinned only by the f…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-37988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
