In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drbd: fix "LOGIC BUG" in drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock()
Even though we check that we "should" be able to do lc_get_cumulative() while holding the device->al_lock spinlock, it may still fail, if some other code path decided to do lc_try_lock() with bad timing.
If that happened, we logged "LOGIC BUG for enr=...", but still did not return an error.
The rest of the code now assumed that this request has references for the relevant activity log extents.
The implcations are that during an active resync, mutual exclusivity of resync versus application IO is not guaranteed. And a potential crash at this point may not realizs that these extents could have been target of in-flight IO and would need to be resynced just in case.
Also, once the request completes, it will give up activity log references it does not even hold, which will trigger a BUG_ON(refcnt == 0) in lc_put().
Fix:
Do not crash the kernel for a condition that is harmless during normal operation: also catch "e->refcnt == 0", not only "e == NULL" when being noisy about "al_complete_io() called on inactive extent %u\n".
And do not try to be smart and "guess" whether something will work, then be surprised when it does not. Deal with the fact that it may or may not work. If it does not, remember a possible "partially in activity log" state (only possible for requests that cross extent boundaries), and return an error code from drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock().
A latter call for the same request will then resume from where we left off.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 3.10.1 | 5.10.253 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 5.15.203 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 6.1.167 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.6.130 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.77 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.17 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.7 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 3.10 | 3.10.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc1 | 7.0-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc2 | 7.0-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc3 | 7.0-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc4 | 7.0-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc5 | 7.0-rc5.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc6 | 7.0-rc6.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc7 | 7.0-rc7.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.