CVE-2026-23393

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bridge: cfm: Fix race condition in peer_mep deletion

When a peer MEP is being deleted, cancel_delayed_work_sync() is called on ccm_rx_dwork before freeing. However, br_cfm_frame_rx() runs in softirq context under rcu_read_lock (without RTNL) and can re-schedule ccm_rx_dwork via ccm_rx_timer_start() between cancel_delayed_work_sync() returning and kfree_rcu() being called.

The following is a simple race scenario:

       cpu0                                     cpu1

mep_delete_implementation() cancel_delayed_work_sync(ccm_rx_dwork); br_cfm_frame_rx() // peer_mep still in hlist if (peer_mep->ccm_defect) ccm_rx_timer_start() queue_delayed_work(ccm_rx_dwork) hlist_del_rcu(&peer_mep->head); kfree_rcu(peer_mep, rcu); ccm_rx_work_expired() // on freed peer_mep

To prevent this, cancel_delayed_work_sync() is replaced with disable_delayed_work_sync() in both peer MEP deletion paths, so that subsequent queue_delayed_work() calls from br_cfm_frame_rx() are silently rejected.

The cc_peer_disable() helper retains cancel_delayed_work_sync() because it is also used for the CC enable/disable toggle path where the work must remain re-schedulable.

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Potential Mitigations

• Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
• Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/26.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/29.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1fd81151f65927fd9edb8ecd12ad45527dbbe5ab
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3715a00855316066cdda69d43648336367422127
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d8f35767bacb3c7769d470a41cf161e3f3c07e70
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e89dbd2736a45f0507949af4748cbbf3ff793146