CVE-2025-71181: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page() When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes like the following: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO -------------------------------------------- kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230 but task is already holding lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&l->lock); lock(&l->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 3 locks held by kswapd0/68: #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160 #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230 To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page().
CVE-2025-71181CVSS 5.5Linux

CVE-2025-71181: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page() When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes like the following: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO -------------------------------------------- kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230 but task is already holding lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&l->lock); lock(&l->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 3 locks held by kswapd0/68: #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160 #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230 To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page().

CVSS
5.5 MEDIUM
EPSS
1.16%
Known exploited
not in KEV
Product
linux kernel

What is known

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page() When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes like the following: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO -------------------------------------------- kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230 but task is already holding lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&l->lock); lock(&l->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 3 locks held by kswapd0/68: #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160 #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230 To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page().

Sources

Security newsletter

Get new CVE alerts before they become an incident

We send selected infrastructure threats in English, with practical notes for DataHouse environments.

  • DataHouse: server administration and secure cloud
  • Hostilla.pl: hosting and mail services
  • SecDNS.pl: free DNS security layer