CVE-2026-93231

lockd: fix swapped arguments in nlmsvc_match_ip()

N/A
Published: September 24, 2026 at 03:29 PM UTC
Updated: October 21, 2026 at 01:21 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
N/A
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: lockd: fix swapped arguments in nlmsvc_match_ip() When releasing locks by server IP address via /proc/fs/nfsd/unlock_ip, nlmsvc_unlock_all_by_ip() calls nlm_traverse_files() with the server sockaddr as the opaque @data argument: nlm_traverse_files(server_addr, nlmsvc_match_ip, NULL); The match callback is later invoked from nlm_traverse_locks() as: match(lockhost, host); where the first argument is the nlm_host that owns the lock, and the second argument is the @data that was originally passed down (here the server sockaddr). This is the convention every other match callback relies on (nlmsvc_mark_host(), nlmsvc_same_host(), nlmsvc_is_client()): arg1 is the real nlm_host, arg2 is the caller-supplied reference value. nlmsvc_match_ip() has had these two arguments reversed ever since the unlock-by-IP feature was introduced in commit 4373ea84c84d ("lockd: unlock lockd locks associated with a given server ip"): return rpc_cmp_addr(nlm_srcaddr(host), datap); Here @host is actually the server sockaddr, so nlm_srcaddr(host) dereferences a struct sockaddr as a struct nlm_host and reads garbage at the offset of h_srcaddr; meanwhile @datap is actually the lock owner's nlm_host but is compared as a sockaddr. As a result the comparison practically never matches and locks are not released for the requested IP. Swap the arguments so the lock owner's source address is compared against the requested server address: return rpc_cmp_addr(nlm_srcaddr(datap), (struct sockaddr *)host); [ cel: fix the misleading typedef parameter names too ]

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

2.6.264373ea84c84d8a96e99d3da99e813d3e36d1bd11
Vendor states this is fixed in 0d72e78c9d38d5377a059a4837f82b65b91cdcf6 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 21bcb609e0ab1dd60f39ca3498f85808933bcc9f (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in b9060689f49dc663e9a3d069c4a65ff63a836e66 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in d34c2ac447fe0490ede828e0143e2cbcb59e6c77 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 2.6.26 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.112 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.51 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.160 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2.4 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3-rc1 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

Quick Info

StatusRECEIVED

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card