In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/slab: do not access current->mems_allowed_seq if !allow_spin
Lockdep complains when get_from_any_partial() is called in an NMI context, because current->mems_allowed_seq is seqcount_spinlock_t and not NMI-safe:
inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage. kunit_try_catch/9989 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: ffff889085799820 (&____s->seqcount#3){.-.-}-{0:0}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x58f/0xc00 {INITIAL USE} state was registered at: lock_acquire+0x185/0x320 kernel_init_freeable+0x391/0x1150 kernel_init+0x1f/0x220 ret_from_fork+0x736/0x8f0 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 irq event stamp: 56 hardirqs last enabled at (55): [<ffffffff850a68d7>] _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x27/0x70 hardirqs last disabled at (56): [<ffffffff850858ca>] __schedule+0x2a8a/0x6630 softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff81536711>] copy_process+0x1dc1/0x6a10 softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&____s->seqcount#3);
<Interrupt>
lock(&____s->seqcount#3);
*** DEADLOCK ***
According to Documentation/locking/seqlock.rst, seqcount_t is not NMI-safe and seqcount_latch_t should be used when read path can interrupt the write-side critical section. In this case, do not access current->mems_allowed_seq and avoid retry.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.18 | 6.18.16 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.6 |
| 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.