In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev. Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So 1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock. 2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close) This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause: 1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be called without rtnl_lock. 2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrs_lock locks This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
Review the upstream advisory, identify the affected product in your inventory, and apply the vendor update when one is available.
CVE-2026-23103 is listed in the HOL Guard supply-chain feed, but affected software is not mapped to a package. Review the upstream advisory for the affected product and vendor guidance. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev. Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So 1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock. 2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close) This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause: 1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be called without rtnl_lock. 2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrs_lock locks This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
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: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev. Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So 1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock. 2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close) This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause: 1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be called without rtnl_lock. 2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrs_lock locks This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
Review the upstream advisory, identify the affected product in your inventory, and apply the vendor update when one is available.
CVE-2026-23103 is listed in the HOL Guard supply-chain feed, but affected software is not mapped to a package. Review the upstream advisory for the affected product and vendor guidance. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvlan: Make the addrs_lock be per port Make the addrs_lock be per port, not per ipvlan dev. Initial code seems to be written in the assumption, that any address change must occur under RTNL. But it is not so for the case of IPv6. So 1) Introduce per-port addrs_lock. 2) It was needed to fix places where it was forgotten to take lock (ipvlan_open/ipvlan_close) This appears to be a very minor problem though. Since it's highly unlikely that ipvlan_add_addr() will be called on 2 CPU simultaneously. But nevertheless, this could cause: 1) False-negative of ipvlan_addr_busy(): one interface iterated through all port->ipvlans + ipvlan->addrs under some ipvlan spinlock, and another added IP under its own lock. Though this is only possible for IPv6, since looks like only ipvlan_addr6_event() can be called without rtnl_lock. 2) Race since ipvlan_ht_addr_add(port) is called under different ipvlan->addrs_lock locks This should not affect performance, since add/remove IP is a rare situation and spinlock is not taken on fast paths.
Affected software not mapped. Review the upstream record for vendor-specific product and version guidance.
Reported by NVD (nvd).
HOL Guard can help your team monitor supply-chain activity while the upstream record is clarified.
Explore HOL GuardReported by NVD (nvd).
HOL Guard can help your team monitor supply-chain activity while the upstream record is clarified.
Explore HOL Guard