Full List

Search

Recent Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43212 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Make cpumask_of_node() robust against NUMA_NO_NODE The arch definition of cpumask_of_node() cannot handle NUMA_NO_NODE - which is a valid index - so add a check for this.
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]
• CVE-2026-43211 • published on May 6, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: Fix pci_slot_trylock() error handling Commit a4e772898f8b ("PCI: Add missing bridge lock to pci_bus_lock()") delegates the bridge device's pci_dev_trylock() to pci_bus_trylock() in pci_slot_trylock(), but it forgets to remove the corresponding pci_dev_unlock() when pci_bus_trylock() fails. Before a4e772898f8b, the code did: if (!pci_dev_trylock(dev)) /* - lock bridge device */ goto unlock; if (dev-subordinate) { if (!pci_bus_trylock(dev->subordinate)) { pci_dev_unlock(dev); /* <- unlock bridge device */ goto unlock; } } After a4e772898f8b the bridge-device lock is no longer taken, but the pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path was left in place, leading to the bug. This yields one of two errors: 1. A warning that the lock is being unlocked when no one holds it. 2. An incorrect unlock of a lock that belongs to another thread. Fix it by removing the now-redundant pci_dev_unlock(dev) on the failure path. [Same patch later posted by Keith at https://patch.msgid.link/20260116184150.3013258-1-kbusch@meta.com]