CVE-2026-74686: rqspinlock: Reset tail when preserving queue on deadlock

Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-cve-announce
Message-ID <2026082232-CVE-2026-74686-ccee@gregkh>
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

Description
===========

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

rqspinlock: Reset tail when preserving queue on deadlock

Currently, the destruction of the waiter queue is suppressed for
rqspinlock in cases where a deadlock is detected. Deadlock checks happen
relatively frequently (on entry for AA, within 1ms for ABBA), and waiter
threads may not be involved in locking scenarios involving deadlocks.
Thus, it is useful to not flush the queue and let other waiters take a
stab at acquiring the lock after we detect a deadlock and exit.

However, we need to follow the same logic as what we did previously for
the waitq_timeout label: reset the tail, and if we cannot, signal the
next waiter appropriately. In case of deadlocks, this signal would just
mark the MCS node as unlocked, and in case of timeouts, it would signal
RES_TIMEOUT_VAL. The difference thus is in the value propagated, which
decides whether the queue remains active or gets flushed.

Not doing the tail reset, and waiting for the next waiter can lead to
cases where we are the final waiter, and thus no next waiter arrives,
leading to intermittent stalls in this path. Once the next waiter does
join, we will be unblocked. In the theoretical case when the next waiter
never joins, we risk stalling indefinitely.

This can only happen for ABBA deadlocks, since entry into the wait queue
is guarded with AA checks. A precise sequence of executions leading up
to this scenario can be:

CPU 0 holds lock A.
CPU 1 holds lock B.
CPU 2 attempts lock B, becomes the pending waiter for B.
CPU 0 attempts lock B. B has locked+pending bits set, thus CPU 0 queues.
CPU 1 attempts lock A.
CPU 0 detects an ABBA deadlock.

Once deadlock detection happens for CPU 0, it will sit waiting for the
next waiter in the queue to populate node->next, which will experience
delays until such a waiter arrives.

Fix this by adjusting the logic for the check for deadlocks preceding
the waitq_timeout label. It would make sense to consolidate code for
both cases and use 'ret' to distinguish the value being propagated, but
that is left as an exercise for a future refactoring task to avoid diff
noise in this patch.

The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2026-74686 to this issue.


Affected and fixed versions
===========================

	Issue introduced in 6.19 with commit 7bd6e5ce5be666fb3fb873bf20f77e62555b7835 and fixed in 7.1.9 with commit f54667b0c16213285c9d9b8e3929f738b8f71826
	Issue introduced in 6.19 with commit 7bd6e5ce5be666fb3fb873bf20f77e62555b7835 and fixed in 7.2 with commit 7a3c0289c3c8eb4607dff448ae9ff9f902c813af

Please see https://www.kernel.org for a full list of currently supported
kernel versions by the kernel community.

Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
older supported kernel versions.  The official CVE entry at
	https://cve.org/CVERecord/?id=CVE-2026-74686
will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
up to date information about this issue.


Affected files
==============

The file(s) affected by this issue are:
	kernel/bpf/rqspinlock.c


Mitigation
==========

The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes.  Individual
changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
release.  Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
supported by the Linux kernel community at all.  If however, updating to
the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
issue can be found at these commits:
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f54667b0c16213285c9d9b8e3929f738b8f71826
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7a3c0289c3c8eb4607dff448ae9ff9f902c813af
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.