CVE-2026-23025 — linux / linux_kernel
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/page_alloc: prevent pcp corruption with SMP=n
The kernel test robot has reported:
BUG: spinlock trylock failure on UP on CPU#0, kcompactd0/28 lock: 0xffff888807e35ef0, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kcompactd0/28, .owner_cpu: 0 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 28 Comm: kcompactd0 Not tainted 6.18.0-rc5-00127-ga06157804399 #1 PREEMPT 8cc09ef94dcec767faa911515ce9e609c45db470 Call Trace: <IRQ> __dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:95) dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:123) dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:130) spin_dump (kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c:71) do_raw_spin_trylock (kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c:?) _raw_spin_trylock (include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:89 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:138) __free_frozen_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:2973) ___free_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:5295) __free_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:5334) tlb_remove_table_rcu (include/linux/mm.h:? include/linux/mm.h:3122 include/asm-generic/tlb.h:220 mm/mmu_gather.c:227 mm/mmu_gather.c:290) ? __cfi_tlb_remove_table_rcu (mm/mmu_gather.c:289) ? rcu_core (kernel/rcu/tree.c:?) rcu_core (include/linux/rcupdate.h:341 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2607 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2861) rcu_core_si (kernel/rcu/tree.c:2879) handle_softirqs (arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h:36 include/trace/events/irq.h:142 kernel/softirq.c:623) __irq_exit_rcu (arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h:36 kernel/softirq.c:725) irq_exit_rcu (kernel/softirq.c:741) sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt (arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1052) </IRQ> <TASK> RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore (arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:95 include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:152 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:194) free_pcppages_bulk (mm/page_alloc.c:1494) drain_pages_zone (include/linux/spinlock.h:391 mm/page_alloc.c:2632) __drain_all_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:2731) drain_all_pages (mm/page_alloc.c:2747) kcompactd (mm/compaction.c:3115) kthread (kernel/kthread.c:465) ? __cfi_kcompactd (mm/compaction.c:3166) ? __cfi_kthread (kernel/kthread.c:412) ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/process.c:164) ? __cfi_kthread (kernel/kthread.c:412) ret_from_fork_asm (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:255) </TASK>
Matthew has analyzed the report and identified that in drain_page_zone() we are in a section protected by spin_lock(&pcp->lock) and then get an interrupt that attempts spin_trylock() on the same lock. The code is designed to work this way without disabling IRQs and occasionally fail the trylock with a fallback. However, the SMP=n spinlock implementation assumes spin_trylock() will always succeed, and thus it's normally a no-op. Here the enabled lock debugging catches the problem, but otherwise it could cause a corruption of the pcp structure.
The problem has been introduced by commit 574907741599 ("mm/page_alloc: leave IRQs enabled for per-cpu page allocations"). The pcp locking scheme recognizes the need for disabling IRQs to prevent nesting spin_trylock() sections on SMP=n, but the need to prevent the nesting in spin_lock() has not been recognized. Fix it by introducing local wrappers that change the spin_lock() to spin_lock_iqsave() with SMP=n and use them in all places that do spin_lock(&pcp->lock).
[[email protected]: add pcp_ prefix to the spin_lock_irqsave wrappers, per Steven]
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.1.57 | 6.1.162 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2.1 | 6.6.122 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.67 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.7 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc1 | 6.19-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc2 | 6.19-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc3 | 6.19-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc4 | 6.19-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc5 | 6.19-rc5.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc6 | 6.19-rc6.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc7 | 6.19-rc7.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19-rc8 | 6.19-rc8.x |
- https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-253495.html
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/038a102535eb49e10e93eafac54352fcc5d78847
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3098f8f7c7b0686c74827aec42a2c45e69801ff8
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4a04ff9cd816e7346fcc8126f00ed80481f6569d
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/68688fc4eab007834b4c2d740214423ba2a335a8
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/df63d31e9ae02e2f6cd96147779e4ed7cd0e75f6
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
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.