CVE-2026-45907

Published May 27, 2026 Modified May 27, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlocks between devlink and netdev instance locks In the mentioned "Fixes" commit, various work tasks triggering devlink health reporter recovery were switched to use netdev_trylock to protect against concurrent tear down of the channels being recovered. But this had the side effect of introducing potential deadlocks because of incorrect lock ordering. The correct lock order is described by the init flow: probe_one -> mlx5_init_one (acquires devlink lock) -> mlx5_init_one_devl_locked -> mlx5_register_device -> mlx5_rescan_drivers_locked -...-> mlx5e_probe -> _mlx5e_probe -> register_netdev (acquires rtnl lock) -> register_netdevice (acquires netdev lock) => devlink lock -> rtnl lock -> netdev lock. But in the current recovery flow, the order is wrong: mlx5e_tx_err_cqe_work (acquires netdev lock) -> mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe -> mlx5e_health_report -> devlink_health_report (acquires devlink lock => boom!) -> devlink_health_reporter_recover -> mlx5e_tx_reporter_recover -> mlx5e_tx_reporter_recover_from_ctx -> mlx5e_tx_reporter_err_cqe_recover The same pattern exists in: mlx5e_reporter_rx_timeout mlx5e_reporter_tx_ptpsq_unhealthy mlx5e_reporter_tx_timeout Fix these by moving the netdev_trylock calls from the work handlers lower in the call stack, in the respective recovery functions, where they are actually necessary.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-45907? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlocks between devlink and netdev instance locks In the mentioned "Fixes" commit, various work tasks triggering devlink health reporter recovery were switched to use netdev_trylock to protect against concurrent tear down of the channels being recovered. But this had the side effect of introducing potential deadlocks because of incorrect lock ordering. The correct lock order is described by the init flow: probe_one -> mlx5_init_one (acquires devlink lock) -> mlx5_init_one_devl_locked -> mlx5_register_device -> mlx5_rescan_drivers_locked -...-> mlx5e_probe -> _mlx5e_probe -> register_netdev (acquires rtnl lock) -> register_netdevice (acquires netdev lock) => devlink lock -> rtnl lock -> netdev lock. But in the current recovery flow, the order is wrong: mlx5e_tx_err_cqe_work (acquires netdev lock) -> mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe -> mlx5e_health_report -> devlink_health_report (acquires devlink lock => boom!) -> devlink_health_reporter_recover -> mlx5e_tx_reporter_recover -> mlx5e_tx_reporter_recover_from_ctx -> mlx5e_tx_reporter_err_cqe_recover The same pattern exists in: mlx5e_reporter_rx_timeout mlx5e_reporter_tx_ptpsq_unhealthy mlx5e_reporter_tx_timeout Fix these by moving the netdev_trylock calls from the work handlers lower in the call stack, in the respective recovery functions, where they are actually necessary.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-45907? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2026-45907 — free, no signup required.

Start Free Scan