CVE-2025-38305None▾ SunlitIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ptp: remove ptp->n_vclocks check logic in ptp_vclock_in_use() There is no disagreement that we should check both ptp->is_virtual_clock and ptp->n_vclocks to check if t…
▾ Sunlit zone — Low / medium · no exploitation signal
impact 2.8 · likelihood 0 · exploitation 0
Need a working PoC? Pro members can cast a request and our team develops one — it lands right here.
Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization from CISA's ADP record at CVE.org: whether exploitation is observed, whether an attack can be automated, and how much of the system is at stake.
Exploit-prediction probability, daily snapshots since Nov 5.
Disclosure to exploitation, from the record and what we observed since indexing it.
Disclosed via CVEORG
Last analysed / modified upstream
0.2%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ptp: remove ptp->n_vclocks check logic in ptp_vclock_in_use()
There is no disagreement that we should check both ptp->is_virtual_clock and ptp->n_vclocks to check if the ptp virtual clock is in use.
However, when we acquire ptp->n_vclocks_mux to read ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use(), we observe a recursive lock in the call trace starting from n_vclocks_store().
syz.0.1540/13807 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888035a24868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ptp_vclock_in_use drivers/ptp/ptp_private.h:103 [inline] ffff888035a24868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ptp_clock_unregister+0x21/0x250 drivers/ptp/ptp_clock.c:415
but task is already holding lock: ffff888030704868 (&ptp->n_vclocks_mux){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: n_vclocks_store+0xf1/0x6d0 drivers/ptp/ptp_sysfs.c:215
other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux); lock(&ptp->n_vclocks_mux);
The best way to solve this is to remove the logic that checks ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use().
The reason why this is appropriate is that any path that uses ptp->n_vclocks must unconditionally check if ptp->n_vclocks is greater than 0 before unregistering vclocks, and all functions are already written this way. And in the function that uses ptp->n_vclocks, we already get ptp->n_vclocks_mux before unregistering vclocks.
Therefore, we need to remove the redundant check for ptp->n_vclocks in ptp_vclock_in_use() to prevent recursive locking.
Linux >= 73f37068d540eba5f93ba3a0019bf479d35ebd76 < 5d217e7031a5c06d366580fc6ddbf43527b780d4Linux >= 73f37068d540eba5f93ba3a0019bf479d35ebd76 < b1b73c452331451020be3bf4b014901015ae6663Linux >= 73f37068d540eba5f93ba3a0019bf479d35ebd76 < 259119595227fd20f6aa29d85abe086b6fdd9eb1Linux >= 73f37068d540eba5f93ba3a0019bf479d35ebd76 < b93e6fef4eda48e17d9c642b9abad98a066fd4a3Linux >= 73f37068d540eba5f93ba3a0019bf479d35ebd76 < ef8fc007c28a30a4c0d90bf755e0f343d99bb392Linux >= 73f37068d540eba5f93ba3a0019bf479d35ebd76 < 87f7ce260a3c838b49e1dc1ceedf1006795157a2Linux 5.14Refer to the linked advisories for vendor-supplied fixes and affected version ranges.
Connected by shared product, vendor, weakness, or advisory.
CVE-2026-99284Nonenet: skbuff: propagate shared-frag marker in skb_zerocopy()
CVE-2026-99283Nonenetfilter: conntrack: tcp: use UNACK timeout for non-closing RST packets
CVE-2026-99272Nonesmb: client: validate the data area in SMB2_read()
CVE-2026-99271NoneALSA: line6: Clear prev_fbuf on capture buffer release
CVE-2026-99273Noneksmbd: reserve space for the UTF-16 terminator in stream info
CVE-2026-99275Nonesmb: client: reject short SESSION_SETUP responses