CVE-2026-45904 — linux / linux_kernel
Uncontrolled RecursionIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc/eeh: fix recursive pci_lock_rescan_remove locking in EEH event handling
The recent commit 1010b4c012b0 ("powerpc/eeh: Make EEH driver device hotplug safe") restructured the EEH driver to improve synchronization with the PCI hotplug layer.
However, it inadvertently moved pci_lock_rescan_remove() outside its intended scope in eeh_handle_normal_event(), leading to broken PCI error reporting and improper EEH event triggering. Specifically, eeh_handle_normal_event() acquired pci_lock_rescan_remove() before calling eeh_pe_bus_get(), but eeh_pe_bus_get() itself attempts to acquire the same lock internally, causing nested locking and disrupting normal EEH event handling paths.
This patch adds a boolean parameter do_lock to _eeh_pe_bus_get(), with two public wrappers: eeh_pe_bus_get() with locking enabled. eeh_pe_bus_get_nolock() that skips locking.
Callers that already hold pci_lock_rescan_remove() now use eeh_pe_bus_get_nolock() to avoid recursive lock acquisition.
Additionally, pci_lock_rescan_remove() calls are restored to the correct position—after eeh_pe_bus_get() and immediately before iterating affected PEs and devices. This ensures EEH-triggered PCI removes occur under proper bus rescan locking without recursive lock contention.
The eeh_pe_loc_get() function has been split into two functions: eeh_pe_loc_get(struct eeh_pe *pe) which retrieves the loc for given PE. eeh_pe_loc_get_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) which retrieves the location code for given bus.
This resolves lockdep warnings such as: <snip> [ 84.964298] [ T928] ============================================ [ 84.964304] [ T928] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 84.964311] [ T928] 6.18.0-rc3 #51 Not tainted [ 84.964315] [ T928] -------------------------------------------- [ 84.964320] [ T928] eehd/928 is trying to acquire lock: [ 84.964324] [ T928] c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964342] [ T928] but task is already holding lock: [ 84.964347] [ T928] c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964357] [ T928] other info that might help us debug this: [ 84.964363] [ T928] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 84.964367] [ T928] CPU0 [ 84.964370] [ T928] ---- [ 84.964373] [ T928] lock(pci_rescan_remove_lock); [ 84.964378] [ T928] lock(pci_rescan_remove_lock); [ 84.964383] [ T928] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 84.964388] [ T928] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[ 84.964393] [ T928] 1 lock held by eehd/928: [ 84.964397] [ T928] #0: c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964408] [ T928] stack backtrace: [ 84.964414] [ T928] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 928 Comm: eehd Not tainted 6.18.0-rc3 #51 VOLUNTARY [ 84.964417] [ T928] Hardware name: IBM,9080-HEX POWER10 (architected) 0x800200 0xf000006 of:IBM,FW1060.00 (NH1060_022) hv:phyp pSeries [ 84.964419] [ T928] Call Trace: [ 84.964420] [ T928] [c0000011a7157990] [c000000001705de4] dump_stack_lvl+0xc8/0x130 (unreliable) [ 84.964424] [ T928] [c0000011a71579d0] [c0000000002f66e0] print_deadlock_bug+0x430/0x440 [ 84.964428] [ T928] [c0000011a7157a70] [c0000000002fd0c0] __lock_acquire+0x1530/0x2d80 [ 84.964431] [ T928] [c0000011a7157ba0] [c0000000002fea54] lock_acquire+0x144/0x410 [ 84.964433] [ T928] [c0000011a7157cb0] [c0000011a7157cb0] __mutex_lock+0xf4/0x1050 [ 84.964436] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e00] [c000000000de21d8] pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964439] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e20] [c00000000004ed98] eeh_pe_bus_get+0x48/0xc0 [ 84.964442] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e50] [c00000 ---truncated---
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.10.241 | 5.10.252 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.15.190 | 5.15.202 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.1.148 | 6.1.165 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.6.102 | 6.6.128 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.12.42 | 6.12.75 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.15.10 | 6.16 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16.1 | 6.18.14 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.4 |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6e6561231c6cfc32c5631aeecc0928ff2b14265c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/788dd28fd49610d6047cbb15dbf1186afffdfbaf
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/815a8d2feb5615ae7f0b5befd206af0b0160614c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/87a1f93986aa1500b85aeff16b0b71c29ea116ea
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/89810e2d80281d42f855fac813786758ee16e323
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b85ee287bfe52c6b2d9b41758b5e0d08679d5b39
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f49faa4a64f8ac0e38983e606075b25dfcfc9ad4
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f8b16d5764ee1e78c1ef333017ad383ffe76fcdc
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.