Threats Tagged 'ubuntu-cve-2025-39905'
View all threats tagged with 'ubuntu-cve-2025-39905'. Filter and sort to focus on specific types of threats.
Stop chasing alerts. Route them.
Start free, then upgrade once to turn Radar into an automated delivery engine for your security stack.
Custom feeds / Automations: email, Slack, webhooks, SIEM/MISP / API access (baseline limits)
API access activates after upgrading in Console -> Billing.
Check if your credentials are on the dark web
Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.
Filter Threats
Narrow down the results by type, severity, or affected countries
Threats Tagged 'ubuntu-cve-2025-39905'
Click on any threat for detailed analysis and mitigation recommendations
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: phylink: add lock for serializing concurrent pl->phydev writes with resolver Currently phylink_resolve() protects itself against concurrent phylink_bringup_phy() or phylink_disconnect_phy() calls which modify pl->phydev by relying on pl->state_mutex. The problem is that in phylink_resolve(), pl->state_mutex is in a lock inversion state with pl->phydev->lock. So pl->phydev->lock needs to be acquired prior to pl->state_mutex. But that requires dereferencing pl->phydev in the first place, and without pl->state_mutex, that is racy. Hence the reason for the extra lock. Currently it is redundant, but it will serve a functional purpose once mutex_lock(&phy->lock) will be moved outside of the mutex_lock(&pl->state_mutex) section. Another alternative considered would have been to let phylink_resolve() acquire the rtnl_mutex, which is also held when phylink_bringup_phy() and phylink_disconnect_phy() are called. But since phylink_disconnect_phy() runs under rtnl_lock(), it would deadlock with phylink_resolve() when calling flush_work(&pl->resolve). Additionally, it would have been undesirable because it would have unnecessarily blocked many other call paths as well in the entire kernel, so the smaller-scoped lock was preferred. Join the discussion | GCVE Database | 10/01/2025, 08:15:00 UTC Added: 07/21/2026, 20:03:57 UTC |
Showing 1 to 1 of 1 result