We use necessary cookies to keep DataHouse.pl working and optional cookies for analytics and marketing. You can accept all, reject optional cookies, or configure your choices.

OK, I AGREE I DISAGREE CHANGE THE CONSENTS

Thanks to cookies and similar technologies (hereinafter referred to as "cookies"), we can improve the functionality of our website and display content tailored to your needs and expectations.

For more information on the use of cookies, please see our [Cookie Policy].

I agree to:

Analytical use of cookies

Marketing use of cookies

Use of necessary cookies (always active)

Your preferences regarding cookies, expressed after logging in to the website, will be assigned to your Datahouse.pl account. This ensures that it is also saved if you sign in to your account from another device or browser.

CONFIRM SELECTION CANCEL

CVE-2025-38632: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: fix race causing mux_owner NULL with active mux_usecount commit 5a3e85c3c397 ("pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data") tried to address the issue when two client of the same gpio calls pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, was resulting in NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. However, issue was not completely fixed due to the way it was handled and it can still result in the same NULL pointer. The issue occurs due to the following interleaving: cpu0 (process A) cpu1 (process B) pin_request() { pin_free() { mutex_lock() desc->mux_usecount--; //becomes 0 .. mutex_unlock() mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_usecount++; // becomes 1 desc->mux_owner = owner; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_owner = NULL; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) This sequence leads to a state where the pin appears to be in use (`mux_usecount == 1`) but has no owner (`mux_owner == NULL`), which can cause NULL pointer on next pin_request on the same pin. Ensure that updates to mux_usecount and mux_owner are performed atomically under the same lock. Only clear mux_owner when mux_usecount reaches zero and no new owner has been assigned.

CVE-2025-38632CVSS 4.7Linux

CVE-2025-38632: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: fix race causing mux_owner NULL with active mux_usecount commit 5a3e85c3c397 ("pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data") tried to address the issue when two client of the same gpio calls pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, was resulting in NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. However, issue was not completely fixed due to the way it was handled and it can still result in the same NULL pointer. The issue occurs due to the following interleaving: cpu0 (process A) cpu1 (process B) pin_request() { pin_free() { mutex_lock() desc->mux_usecount--; //becomes 0 .. mutex_unlock() mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_usecount++; // becomes 1 desc->mux_owner = owner; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_owner = NULL; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) This sequence leads to a state where the pin appears to be in use (`mux_usecount == 1`) but has no owner (`mux_owner == NULL`), which can cause NULL pointer on next pin_request on the same pin. Ensure that updates to mux_usecount and mux_owner are performed atomically under the same lock. Only clear mux_owner when mux_usecount reaches zero and no new owner has been assigned.

CVSS: 4.7 MEDIUM
EPSS: 1.22%
Known exploited: not in KEV
Product: linux kernel

What is known

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: fix race causing mux_owner NULL with active mux_usecount commit 5a3e85c3c397 ("pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data") tried to address the issue when two client of the same gpio calls pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, was resulting in NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. However, issue was not completely fixed due to the way it was handled and it can still result in the same NULL pointer. The issue occurs due to the following interleaving: cpu0 (process A) cpu1 (process B) pin_request() { pin_free() { mutex_lock() desc->mux_usecount--; //becomes 0 .. mutex_unlock() mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_usecount++; // becomes 1 desc->mux_owner = owner; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_owner = NULL; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) This sequence leads to a state where the pin appears to be in use (`mux_usecount == 1`) but has no owner (`mux_owner == NULL`), which can cause NULL pointer on next pin_request on the same pin. Ensure that updates to mux_usecount and mux_owner are performed atomically under the same lock. Only clear mux_owner when mux_usecount reaches zero and no new owner has been assigned.

Sources

Back to security hub Contact DataHouse