Patchlage

CVE-2026-68347

CVE CVE-2026-68347EUVD EUVD-2026-55448Published 2026-08-10T12:03:24.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Fix IRQ unsafe locking in gdom allocation Lockdep complains: [ 259.410489] ===================================================== [ 259.417287] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [ 259.424667] 7.0.0-g51db1d8d2113 #54 Not tainted [ 259.429718] ----------------------------------------------------- [ 259.436516] qemu-system-x86/10143 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 259.444670] ff3b2b1c60305170 (&xa->xa_lock#25){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __domain_flush_pages+0x17c/0x4b0 [ 259.454485] and this task is already holding: [ 259.460991] ff3b2b1c98504cc0 (&domain->lock){-.-.}-{3:3}, at: amd_iommu_iotlb_sync+0x25/0x60 [ 259.470408] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 259.476041] (&domain->lock){-.-.}-{3:3} -> (&xa->xa_lock#25){+.+.}-{3:3} [ 259.483615] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 259.492447] (&domain->lock){-.-.}-{3:3} [ 259.492449] ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at: [ 259.503705] lock_acquire+0xb6/0x2e0 [ 259.507790] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3e/0x60 [ 259.512748] amd_iommu_flush_iotlb_all+0x20/0x50 [ 259.517996] iommu_dma_free_iova.isra.0+0x1b8/0x1e0 [ 259.523534] __iommu_dma_unmap+0xc2/0x140 [ 259.528100] iommu_dma_unmap_phys+0x55/0xc0 [ 259.532863] dma_unmap_phys+0x274/0x2e0 [ 259.537238] dma_unmap_page_attrs+0x17/0x30 [ 259.542000] nvme_unmap_data+0x13e/0x280 [ 259.546473] nvme_pci_complete_batch+0x45/0x70 [ 259.551524] nvme_irq+0x83/0x90 [ 259.555123] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x92/0x360 [ 259.560466] handle_irq_event+0x39/0x80 [ 259.564841] handle_edge_irq+0xb2/0x1a0 [ 259.569214] __common_interrupt+0x4e/0x130 [ 259.573882] common_interrupt+0x88/0xa0 [ 259.578256] asm_common_interrupt+0x27/0x40 [ 259.583019] cpuidle_enter_state+0x119/0x5d0 [ 259.587877] cpuidle_enter+0x2e/0x50 [ 259.591962] do_idle+0x153/0x2c0 [ 259.595657] cpu_startup_entry+0x29/0x30 [ 259.600128] start_secondary+0x118/0x150 [ 259.604601] common_startup_64+0x13e/0x141 [ 259.609266] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 259.615384] (&xa->xa_lock#25){+.+.}-{3:3} [ 259.615386] ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe at: [ 259.627039] ... [ 259.627039] lock_acquire+0xb6/0x2e0 [ 259.633071] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x50 [ 259.637250] amd_iommu_alloc_domain_nested+0x140/0x3c0 [ 259.643078] iommufd_hwpt_alloc+0x272/0x800 [iommufd] [ 259.648813] iommufd_fops_ioctl+0x14e/0x200 [iommufd] [ 259.654547] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x9d/0xf0 ... Since amd_iommu_domain_flush_pages() necessarily holds domain->lock to do the flush, switch the allocation side in gdom_info_load_or_alloc_locked() to HARDIRQ-safe allocation. The IOMMU_DESTROY->free path has the same issue, so switch that path to HARDIRQ-safe locking as well.

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

Does this concern one of your customers?

This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.

Try it for 28 days

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.