In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page()
When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit
fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into
account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback
when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes
like the following:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO
--------------------------------------------
kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230
but task is already holding lock:
ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&l->lock);
lock(&l->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by kswapd0/68:
#0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160
#1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20
#2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230
To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page().
rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page()
When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit
fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into
account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback
when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes
like the following:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO
--------------------------------------------
kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230
but task is already holding lock:
ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&l->lock);
lock(&l->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by kswapd0/68:
#0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160
#1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20
#2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230
To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page().
Default status is the baseline for the product, each version can override it (e.g. patched versions marked unaffected).
| Vendor | Product | Default status | Versions | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | unaffected |
|
|||||||||||||||
| Linux | Linux | affected |
|
No data.
No data.
No data.
Advisories
No advisories yet.
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Mon, 02 Feb 2026 12:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
|
Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page() When forward-porting Rust Binder to 6.18, I neglected to take commit fb56fdf8b9a2 ("mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope") into account, and apparently I did not end up running the shrinker callback when I sanity tested the driver before submission. This leads to crashes like the following: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.18.0-mainline-maybe-dirty #1 Tainted: G IO -------------------------------------------- kswapd0/68 is trying to acquire lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x128/0x230 but task is already holding lock: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&l->lock); lock(&l->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 3 locks held by kswapd0/68: #0: ffffffff90d2e260 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kswapd+0x597/0x1160 #1: ffff956000fa18b0 (&l->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rust_helper_spin_lock+0xd/0x20 #2: ffffffff90cf3680 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: lock_list_lru_of_memcg+0x2d/0x230 To fix this, remove the spin_lock() call from rust_shrink_free_page(). | |
| Title | rust_binder: remove spin_lock() in rust_shrink_free_page() | |
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| References |
|
Projects
Sign in to view the affected projects.
MITRE
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2026-02-09T08:36:05.247Z
Reserved: 2026-01-31T11:36:51.185Z
Link: CVE-2025-71181
Vulnrichment
No data.
NVD
Status : Awaiting Analysis
Published: 2026-01-31T12:16:03.353
Modified: 2026-02-03T16:44:36.630
Link: CVE-2025-71181
Redhat
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
Weaknesses
No weakness.