Strix
56.7K

CVE-2026-72314

HIGHCVSS 7.8/10EPSS 0.22%

Last modified

CVE-2026-72314 is a high-severity vulnerability rated 7.8/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK Compare against -EDEADLK, which is what ww_mutex_lock() actually returns and what every other deadlock check in this file already uses. Function regulator_lock_two() acquires two regulators via regulator_lock_nested() -> ww_mutex_lock(). On contention, ww_mutex_lock() returns -EDEADLK, which is the caller's signal to drop the lock it holds and retry the acquisition in the canonical order. However, regulator_lock_two() tests the return value against -EDEADLOCK rather than -EDEADLK. EPSS estimates a 0.22% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK Compare against -EDEADLK, which is what ww_mutex_lock() actually returns and what every other deadlock check in this file already uses. Function regulator_lock_two() acquires two regulators via regulator_lock_nested() -> ww_mutex_lock(). On contention, ww_mutex_lock() returns -EDEADLK, which is the caller's signal to drop the lock it holds and retry the acquisition in the canonical order. However, regulator_lock_two() tests the return value against -EDEADLOCK rather than -EDEADLK. On most architectures, EDEADLK and EDEADLOCK are the same value, so the comparison happens to be correct and the bug is invisible. But on MIPS, SPARC, and PowerPC, those two errors have different values. The test is wrong: a genuine -EDEADLK backoff no longer matches -EDEADLOCK, so instead of unlocking and retrying, the code falls into WARN_ON(ret) and returns with only one of the two regulators locked. In practice, this is a bug only on MIPS, because the regulator core is not built or used on the other two platforms. In general, EDEADLK is preferred over EDEADLOCK for new code.

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
7.8/10

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS Probability
0.22%

12.8th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Affected Software

Source: CNA advisory (CVE.org). NVD analysis pending.

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux>= 06140d6dfe720d80566f792b4e28a9cd60a67970, < dc804f390fddd9c389edf0976356942e16878d8f; >= 1e3056b8067c2e9b7741c4e588f0acacbe4bdafc, < 8e39aa63798ea0a797fd9341419f12ef91df3238; >= 849ab4cf182b38e562ffcc1b494d510e948822dd, < 0c305eac40470a224671858a215963b070f9b2a9; >= cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573, < 29a7953e9adea6c7f9e64947745b79158e7cea7f; >= cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573, < e2063307ea3b6da74585129ba7b588e8243e2ef0; >= cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573, < 346e2d666a29ae7233c56b356a0487eb1d42589b; >= cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573, < 153d1b8b5bc30847eb70ad535f62f289aa9217e6; >= cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573, < d38f8bd771c4999b797d7074b348cf201414bd34; 5224ea575196db11c0a909a78ea426ccdb92f064; 435c65af581a61ca249bd8f717c3a147dc119f11; cdc042430ea9e07f77ce05a9d29e227dbdecc733; >= 5.10.180, < 5.10.261; >= 5.15.111, < 5.15.212; >= 6.1.28, < 6.1.178; >= 5.4.243, < 5.5; >= 6.2.15, < 6.3; >= 6.3.2, < 6.4
LinuxLinux6.4

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Received

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-72314?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK Compare against -EDEADLK, which is what ww_mutex_lock() actually returns and what every other deadlock check in this file already uses. Function regulator_lock_two() acquires two regulators via regulator_lock_nested() -> ww_mutex_lock(). On contention, ww_mutex_lock() returns -EDEADLK, which is the caller's signal to drop the lock it holds and retry the acquisition in the canonical order. However, regulator_lock_two() tests the return value against -EDEADLOCK rather than -EDEADLK. On most architectures, EDEADLK and EDEADLOCK are the same value, so the comparison happens to be correct and the bug is invisible. But on MIPS, SPARC, and PowerPC, those two errors have different values. The test is wrong: a genuine -EDEADLK backoff no longer matches -EDEADLOCK, so instead of unlocking and retrying, the code falls into WARN_ON(ret) and returns with only one of the two regulators locked. In practice, this is a bug only on MIPS, because the regulator core is not built or used on the other two platforms. In general, EDEADLK is preferred over EDEADLOCK for new code.
How severe is CVE-2026-72314?
CVE-2026-72314 has a CVSS score of 7.8/10 (HIGH severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.22% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2026-72314?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

How Strix Helps

Related CVEs from 2026

View all 2026CVEs →

Are you affected by CVE-2026-72314?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST