In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nvmet: move async event work off nvmet-wq
For target nvmet_ctrl_free() flushes ctrl->async_event_work. If nvmet_ctrl_free() runs on nvmet-wq, the flush re-enters workqueue completion for the same worker:-
A. Async event work queued on nvmet-wq (prior to disconnect): nvmet_execute_async_event() queue_work(nvmet_wq, &ctrl->async_event_work)
nvmet_add_async_event() queue_work(nvmet_wq, &ctrl->async_event_work)
B. Full pre-work chain (RDMA CM path): nvmet_rdma_cm_handler() nvmet_rdma_queue_disconnect() __nvmet_rdma_queue_disconnect() queue_work(nvmet_wq, &queue->release_work) process_one_work() lock((wq_completion)nvmet-wq) <--------- 1st nvmet_rdma_release_queue_work()
C. Recursive path (same worker): nvmet_rdma_release_queue_work() nvmet_rdma_free_queue() nvmet_sq_destroy() nvmet_ctrl_put() nvmet_ctrl_free() flush_work(&ctrl->async_event_work) __flush_work() touch_wq_lockdep_map() lock((wq_completion)nvmet-wq) <--------- 2nd
Lockdep splat:
kworker/u192:42/44933 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888118a00948 ((wq_completion)nvmet-wq){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: touch_wq_lockdep_map+0x26/0x90
but task is already holding lock: ffff888118a00948 ((wq_completion)nvmet-wq){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x53e/0x660
3 locks held by kworker/u192:42/44933: #0: ffff888118a00948 ((wq_completion)nvmet-wq){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x53e/0x660 #1: ffffc9000e6cbe28 ((work_completion)(&queue->release_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1c5/0x660 #2: ffffffff82d4db60 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: __flush_work+0x62/0x530
Workqueue: nvmet-wq nvmet_rdma_release_queue_work [nvmet_rdma] Call Trace: __flush_work+0x268/0x530 nvmet_ctrl_free+0x140/0x310 [nvmet] nvmet_cq_put+0x74/0x90 [nvmet] nvmet_rdma_free_queue+0x23/0xe0 [nvmet_rdma] nvmet_rdma_release_queue_work+0x19/0x50 [nvmet_rdma] process_one_work+0x206/0x660 worker_thread+0x184/0x320 kthread+0x10c/0x240 ret_from_fork+0x319/0x390
Move async event work to a dedicated nvmet-aen-wq to avoid reentrant flush on nvmet-wq.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.15.42 | 5.16 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.17.10 | 5.18 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.18.1 | 6.12.80 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.21 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.11 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.18 | 5.18.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.