In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hwmon: (acpi_power_meter) Fix deadlocks related to acpi_power_meter_notify()
The acpi_power_meter driver's .notify() callback function, acpi_power_meter_notify(), calls hwmon_device_unregister() under a lock that is also acquired by callbacks in sysfs attributes of the device being unregistered which is prone to deadlocks between sysfs access and device removal.
Address this by moving the hwmon device removal in acpi_power_meter_notify() outside the lock in question, but notice that doing it alone is not sufficient because two concurrent METER_NOTIFY_CONFIG notifications may be attempting to remove the same device at the same time. To prevent that from happening, add a new lock serializing the execution of the switch () statement in acpi_power_meter_notify(). For simplicity, it is a static mutex which should not be a problem from the performance perspective.
The new lock also allows the hwmon_device_register_with_info() in acpi_power_meter_notify() to be called outside the inner lock because it prevents the other notifications handled by that function from manipulating the "resource" object while the hwmon device based on it is being registered. The sending of ACPI netlink messages from acpi_power_meter_notify() is serialized by the new lock too which generally helps to ensure that the order of handling firmware notifications is the same as the order of sending netlink messages related to them.
In addition, notice that hwmon_device_register_with_info() may fail in which case resource->hwmon_dev will become an error pointer, so add checks to avoid attempting to unregister the hwmon device pointer to by it in that case to acpi_power_meter_notify() and acpi_power_meter_remove().
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15 | 6.18.10 |
| 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 |
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.