Answer in brief
CVE-2025-71079 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.5) security vulnerability in CVE-2025-71079. The source record does not mark it as known exploited. No package mapping is present, so exposure must be confirmed against the affected product and deployment inventory.
Review the upstream advisory, identify the affected product in your inventory, and apply the vendor update when one is available.
Vulnerability describes the vulnerability class recorded for this advisory. The current record does not mark CVE-2025-71079 as known exploited; continue to monitor the source for status changes. This is a product-level record in the current feed, not a package-level dependency mapping.
Affected software not mapped. Review the upstream record for vendor-specific product and version guidance.
Answer in brief
CVE-2025-71079 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.5) security vulnerability in CVE-2025-71079. The source record does not mark it as known exploited. No package mapping is present, so exposure must be confirmed against the affected product and deployment inventory.
Review the upstream advisory, identify the affected product in your inventory, and apply the vendor update when one is available.
Vulnerability describes the vulnerability class recorded for this advisory. The current record does not mark CVE-2025-71079 as known exploited; continue to monitor the source for status changes. This is a product-level record in the current feed, not a package-level dependency mapping.
Affected software not mapped. Review the upstream record for vendor-specific product and version guidance.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: nfc: fix deadlock between nfc_unregister_device and rfkill_fop_write A deadlock can occur between nfc_unregister_device() and rfkill_fop_write() due to lock ordering inversion between device_lock and rfkill_global_mutex. The problematic lock order is: Thread A (rfkill_fop_write): rfkill_fop_write() mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex) rfkill_set_block() nfc_rfkill_set_block() nfc_dev_down() device_lock(&dev->dev) <- waits for device_lock Thread B (nfc_unregister_device): nfc_unregister_device() device_lock(&dev->dev) rfkill_unregister() mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex) <- waits for rfkill_global_mutex This creates a classic ABBA deadlock scenario. Fix this by moving rfkill_unregister() and rfkill_destroy() outside the device_lock critical section. Store the rfkill pointer in a local variable before releasing the lock, then call rfkill_unregister() after releasing device_lock. This change is safe because rfkill_fop_write() holds rfkill_global_mutex while calling the rfkill callbacks, and rfkill_unregister() also acquires rfkill_global_mutex before cleanup. Therefore, rfkill_unregister() will wait for any ongoing callback to complete before proceeding, and device_del() is only called after rfkill_unregister() returns, preventing any use-after-free. The similar lock ordering in nfc_register_device() (device_lock -> rfkill_global_mutex via rfkill_register) is safe because during registration the device is not yet in rfkill_list, so no concurrent rfkill operations can occur on this device.
Reported by NVD (nvd).
CVE-2025-71079 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.5) security vulnerability in CVE-2025-71079. The source record does not mark it as known exploited. No package mapping is present, so exposure must be confirmed against the affected product and deployment inventory.
The source record does not mark it as known exploited.
Confirm whether the product or interface named by this advisory exists in your inventory.
HOL Guard can help your team monitor supply-chain activity while the upstream record is clarified.
Explore HOL GuardIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: nfc: fix deadlock between nfc_unregister_device and rfkill_fop_write A deadlock can occur between nfc_unregister_device() and rfkill_fop_write() due to lock ordering inversion between device_lock and rfkill_global_mutex. The problematic lock order is: Thread A (rfkill_fop_write): rfkill_fop_write() mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex) rfkill_set_block() nfc_rfkill_set_block() nfc_dev_down() device_lock(&dev->dev) <- waits for device_lock Thread B (nfc_unregister_device): nfc_unregister_device() device_lock(&dev->dev) rfkill_unregister() mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex) <- waits for rfkill_global_mutex This creates a classic ABBA deadlock scenario. Fix this by moving rfkill_unregister() and rfkill_destroy() outside the device_lock critical section. Store the rfkill pointer in a local variable before releasing the lock, then call rfkill_unregister() after releasing device_lock. This change is safe because rfkill_fop_write() holds rfkill_global_mutex while calling the rfkill callbacks, and rfkill_unregister() also acquires rfkill_global_mutex before cleanup. Therefore, rfkill_unregister() will wait for any ongoing callback to complete before proceeding, and device_del() is only called after rfkill_unregister() returns, preventing any use-after-free. The similar lock ordering in nfc_register_device() (device_lock -> rfkill_global_mutex via rfkill_register) is safe because during registration the device is not yet in rfkill_list, so no concurrent rfkill operations can occur on this device.
Reported by NVD (nvd).
CVE-2025-71079 records a Medium severity (CVSS 5.5) security vulnerability in CVE-2025-71079. The source record does not mark it as known exploited. No package mapping is present, so exposure must be confirmed against the affected product and deployment inventory.
The source record does not mark it as known exploited.
Confirm whether the product or interface named by this advisory exists in your inventory.
HOL Guard can help your team monitor supply-chain activity while the upstream record is clarified.
Explore HOL Guard