VYPR
← All advisories
Unrated severityNVD Advisory· Published Jan 13, 2026· Updated Feb 9, 2026

net: nfc: fix deadlock between nfc_unregister_device and rfkill_fop_write

CVE-2025-71079

Description

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.

AI Insight

LLM-synthesized narrative grounded in this CVE's description and references.

Affected products

75

Patches

Vulnerability mechanics

References

7

News mentions

0

No linked articles in our index yet.