Skip to main content

CVE detail

CVE-2026-64112

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap Given how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are written, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it's actually needed: for example in case a new I/O request comes in while we are in the middle of rbd_acquire_lock() on behalf of another I/O request. This is expected and with rbd_release_lock() preemptively canceling lock_dwork is benign under normal operation. A more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire(): if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(&rbd_dev->lock_dwork)) { dout("%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\n", __func__, rbd_dev); mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev->task_wq, &rbd_dev->lock_dwork, 0); } It's not unrealistic for lock_dwork to get canceled right after delayed_work_pending() returns true and for mod_delayed_work() to requeue it right there anyway. This is a classic TOCTOU race. When it comes to unmapping the image, there is an implicit assumption of no self-initiated exclusive lock activity past the point of return from rbd_dev_image_unlock() which unlocks the lock if it happens to be held. This unlock is assumed to be final and lock_dwork (as well as all other exclusive lock tasks, really) isn't expected to get queued again. However, lock_dwork is canceled only in cancel_tasks_sync() (i.e. later in the unmap sequence) and on top of that the cancellation can get in effect nullified by maybe_kick_acquire(). This may result in rbd_acquire_lock() executing after rbd_dev_device_release() and rbd_dev_image_release() run and free and/or reset a bunch of things. One of the possible failure modes then is a violated rbd_assert(rbd_image_format_valid(rbd_dev->image_format)); in rbd_dev_header_info() which is called via rbd_dev_refresh() from rbd_post_acquire_action(). Redo exclusive lock task draining to provide saner semantics and try to meet the assumptions around rbd_dev_image_unlock().

CVSS 7.8 · HighBuzz score 27.9

Buzz score

Why this CVE is surfacing

Buzz score total 27.9

This all-time snapshot uses the same composite formula as Trending across a 30-year evidence window, rather than a current rolling window.

Buzz score components · mention 17.9 · diversity 10.0 · KEV 0.0 · OTX 0.0 · PoC 0.0
Mention score
17.9
5 evidence mentions in the snapshot
Diversity score
10.0
2 sources across 2 categories
KEV score
0.0
No KEV entry observed
OTX score
0.0
0 OTX pulses
PoC score
0.0
0 repos · best confidence N/A
Best PoC traction
0
Maximum stars on a matched PoC repo

Why it matters now

Mention timeline

Total mentions
5
within the 30d window
Peak daily
4
highest bucket

Evidence

Source links by recency

Newest mentions first
5 source links · newest first

Exploit code

Public exploit repository references

Public PoC repositories are third-party, potentially unsafe artifacts. Treat their code as untrusted and use it only on authorized systems in an isolated, least-privilege environment. cvebuzz does not execute the code or verify that an exploit works.

0 repository references · best confidence N/A · max 0 stars
No public PoC repositories have been matched yet.

Related records

Similar CVEs

6 related CVEs with shared weakness or product evidence