In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
PM: hibernate: defer device probing when resuming from hibernation
syzbot is reporting hung task at misc_open() [1], for there is a race window of AB-BA deadlock which involves probe_count variable. Currently wait_for_device_probe() from snapshot_open() from misc_open() can sleep forever with misc_mtx held if probe_count cannot become 0.
When a device is probed by hub_event() work function, probe_count is incremented before the probe function starts, and probe_count is decremented after the probe function completed.
There are three cases that can prevent probe_count from dropping to 0.
(a) A device being probed stopped responding (i.e. broken/malicious hardware).
(b) A process emulating a USB device using /dev/raw-gadget interface stopped responding for some reason.
(c) New device probe requests keeps coming in before existing device probe requests complete.
The phenomenon syzbot is reporting is (b). A process which is holding system_transition_mutex and misc_mtx is waiting for probe_count to become 0 inside wait_for_device_probe(), but the probe function which is called from hub_event() work function is waiting for the processes which are blocked at mutex_lock(&misc_mtx) to respond via /dev/raw-gadget interface.
This patch mitigates (b) by deferring wait_for_device_probe() from snapshot_open() to snapshot_write() and snapshot_ioctl(). Please note that the possibility of (b) remains as long as any thread which is emulating a USB device via /dev/raw-gadget interface can be blocked by uninterruptible blocking operations (e.g. mutex_lock()).
Please also note that (a) and (c) are not addressed. Regarding (c), we should change the code to wait for only one device which contains the image for resuming from hibernation. I don't know how to address (a), for use of timeout for wait_for_device_probe() might result in loss of user data in the image. Maybe we should require the userland to wait for the image device before opening /dev/snapshot interface.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | - | 4.14.291 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 4.15 | 4.19.256 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 4.20 | 5.4.211 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.5 | 5.10.137 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 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.