CVE-2026-72314

CVE CVE-2026-72314EUVD EUVD-2026-59213Published 2026-08-15T05:55:29.000ZLast changed 2026-08-17T05:42:40.000ZCVSS 7.8

What the advisory describes

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.

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.

• Linux — Linux cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573 <e2063307ea3b6da74585129ba7b588e8243e2ef0; cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573 <d38f8bd771c4999b797d7074b348cf201414bd34; patch: 0; cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573 <29a7953e9adea6c7f9e64947745b79158e7cea7f; 6.2.15 <6.3; patch: 6.12.97; patch: 6.18.40; cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573 <346e2d666a29ae7233c56b356a0487eb1d42589b; patch: 7.2; 6.4; 5.15.111 <5.15.212; 1e3056b8067c2e9b7741c4e588f0acacbe4bdafc <8e39aa63798ea0a797fd9341419f12ef91df3238; cdc042430ea9e07f77ce05a9d29e227dbdecc733; 5.4.243 <5.5; cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573 <153d1b8b5bc30847eb70ad535f62f289aa9217e6; 06140d6dfe720d80566f792b4e28a9cd60a67970 <dc804f390fddd9c389edf0976356942e16878d8f; 435c65af581a61ca249bd8f717c3a147dc119f11; 5224ea575196db11c0a909a78ea426ccdb92f064; patch: 7.1.5; 6.1.28 <6.1.178; 6.3.2 <6.4; 5.10.180 <5.10.261; patch: 6.6.145; patch: 5.10.261; patch: 5.15.212; 849ab4cf182b38e562ffcc1b494d510e948822dd <0c305eac40470a224671858a215963b070f9b2a9; patch: 6.1.178

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.

• Linux — Linux

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.