CVE-2025-71309
is CVE-2025-71309real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/ntfs3: fix deadlock in ni_read_folio_cmpr Syzbot reported a task hung in ni_readpage_cmpr (now ni_read_folio_cmpr). This is caused by a lock inversion deadlock involving the inode mutex (ni_lock) and page locks. Scenario: 1. Task A enters ntfs_read_folio() for page X. It acquires ni_lock. 2. Task A calls ni_read_folio_cmpr(), which attempts to lock all pages in the compressed frame (including page Y). 3. Concurrently, Task B (e.g., via readahead) has locked page Y and calls ntfs_read_folio(). 4. Task B waits for ni_lock (held by A). 5. Task A waits for page Y lock (held by B). -> DEADLOCK. The fix is to restructure locking: do not take ni_lock in ntfs_read_folio(). Instead, acquire ni_lock inside ni_read_folio_cmpr() ONLY AFTER all required page locks for the frame have been successfully acquired. This restores the correct lock ordering (Page Lock -> ni_lock) consistent with VFS. [almaz.alexandrovich@paragon-software.com: ni_readpage_cmpr was renamed to ni_read_folio_cmpr]
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71309)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71309"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-71309/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-71309"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
0 verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.
Add a field note or remediationoptional
Related CVEs
Same weakness: CWE-667.
- CVE-2026-45849MED 5.5EPSS 0%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: mscc: ocelot: add missing lock protection in ocelot_port_xmit_inj() ocelot_port_xmit_inj() calls ocelot_can_inject() and ocelot_port_inject_frame() without holding the injection group lock. Both functions contain lockdep_assert_held() for the injection lock, and the correct caller felix_port_deferred_xmit() properly acquires the lock using ocelot_lock_inj_grp() before calling these functions. Add ocelot_lock_inj_grp()/ocelot_unlock_inj_grp() around the register injection path to fix the missing lock protection. The FDMA path is not affected as it uses its own locking mechanism.
- CVE-2026-46252MED 5.5EPSS 0%
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: fix locking in regulator_resolve_supply() error path If late enabling of a supply regulator fails in regulator_resolve_supply(), the code currently triggers a lockdep warning: WARNING: drivers/regulator/core.c:2649 at _regulator_put+0x80/0xa0, CPU#6: kworker/u32:4/596 ... Call trace: _regulator_put+0x80/0xa0 (P) regulator_resolve_supply+0x7cc/0xbe0 regulator_register_resolve_supply+0x28/0xb8 as the regulator_list_mutex must be held when calling _regulator_put(). To solve this, simply switch to using regulator_put(). While at it, we should also make sure that no concurrent access happens to our rdev while we clear out the supply pointer. Add appropriate locking to ensure that. While the code in question will be removed altogether in a follow-up commit, I believe it is still beneficial to have this corrected before removal for future reference.