Bug 2536557 (CVE-2026-93073)

Summary: CVE-2026-93073 kernel: dax: read holder_ops once in dax_holder_notify_failure()
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Product Security <prodsec-ir-bot>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecifiedCC: akhatavk, aos-team-art-private, asdas, dpaolell, jdelft, jupierce, lgarciaa, mbiarnes, ppalepu, ppostler, prdhamdh, rhel-process-autobot, sghai, sidsharm, suppawar, vlaad, watson-tool-maintainers
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's Direct Access (DAX) subsystem. A race condition in the `dax_holder_notify_failure()` function allows a concurrent operation to clear a critical pointer (`holder_ops`) between two reads. This can lead to a null pointer dereference, potentially enabling a local attacker to cause a system crash, resulting in a denial of service.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-09-17 18:23:57 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

dax: read holder_ops once in dax_holder_notify_failure()

dax_holder_notify_failure() reads dax_dev->holder_ops twice without
READ_ONCE() -- once for the NULL check and once for the indirect
notify_failure() call. A concurrent fs_put_dax() can clear holder_ops
between the two reads, so the check can observe a non-NULL pointer while
the call dereferences NULL. (kill_dax() also clears holder_ops, but only
after synchronize_srcu(), so it cannot race a reader that is inside
dax_read_lock(); fs_put_dax() does no such synchronization.)

Fetch holder_ops once into a local with READ_ONCE() so the NULL check and
the indirect call observe the same value.