CVE-2025-38632
Beschrijving NL
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.
Origineel (Engels) tonen
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.