In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
block: don't allow the same type rq_qos add more than once
In our test of iocost, we encountered some list add/del corruptions of inner_walk list in ioc_timer_fn.
The reason can be described as follows:
cpu 0 cpu 1 ioc_qos_write ioc_qos_write
ioc = q_to_ioc(queue); if (!ioc) { ioc = kzalloc(); ioc = q_to_ioc(queue); if (!ioc) { ioc = kzalloc(); ... rq_qos_add(q, rqos); } ... rq_qos_add(q, rqos); ... }
When the io.cost.qos file is written by two cpus concurrently, rq_qos may be added to one disk twice. In that case, there will be two iocs enabled and running on one disk. They own different iocgs on their active list. In the ioc_timer_fn function, because of the iocgs from two iocs have the same root iocg, the root iocg's walk_list may be overwritten by each other and this leads to list add/del corruptions in building or destroying the inner_walk list.
And so far, the blk-rq-qos framework works in case that one instance for one type rq_qos per queue by default. This patch make this explicit and also fix the crash above.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | - | 5.15.61 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 5.18.18 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.19 | 5.19.2 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.