In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK

Compare against -EDEADLK, which is what ww_mutex_lock() actually
returns and what every other deadlock check in this file already uses.

Function regulator_lock_two() acquires two regulators via
regulator_lock_nested() -> ww_mutex_lock(). On contention,
ww_mutex_lock() returns -EDEADLK, which is the caller's signal to drop
the lock it holds and retry the acquisition in the canonical order.

However, regulator_lock_two() tests the return value against -EDEADLOCK
rather than -EDEADLK. On most architectures, EDEADLK and EDEADLOCK are
the same value, so the comparison happens to be correct and the bug is
invisible. But on MIPS, SPARC, and PowerPC, those two errors have
different values. The test is wrong: a genuine -EDEADLK backoff no
longer matches -EDEADLOCK, so instead of unlocking and retrying, the
code falls into WARN_ON(ret) and returns with only one of the two
regulators locked.

In practice, this is a bug only on MIPS, because the regulator core is
not built or used on the other two platforms.

In general, EDEADLK is preferred over EDEADLOCK for new code.
Advisories

No advisories yet.

Fixes

Solution

No solution given by the vendor.


Workaround

No workaround given by the vendor.

History

Sat, 15 Aug 2026 06:00:00 +0000

Type Values Removed Values Added
Description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK Compare against -EDEADLK, which is what ww_mutex_lock() actually returns and what every other deadlock check in this file already uses. Function regulator_lock_two() acquires two regulators via regulator_lock_nested() -> ww_mutex_lock(). On contention, ww_mutex_lock() returns -EDEADLK, which is the caller's signal to drop the lock it holds and retry the acquisition in the canonical order. However, regulator_lock_two() tests the return value against -EDEADLOCK rather than -EDEADLK. On most architectures, EDEADLK and EDEADLOCK are the same value, so the comparison happens to be correct and the bug is invisible. But on MIPS, SPARC, and PowerPC, those two errors have different values. The test is wrong: a genuine -EDEADLK backoff no longer matches -EDEADLOCK, so instead of unlocking and retrying, the code falls into WARN_ON(ret) and returns with only one of the two regulators locked. In practice, this is a bug only on MIPS, because the regulator core is not built or used on the other two platforms. In general, EDEADLK is preferred over EDEADLOCK for new code.
Title regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK
First Time appeared Linux
Linux linux Kernel
CPEs cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
Vendors & Products Linux
Linux linux Kernel
References

Projects

Sign in to view the affected projects.

cve-icon MITRE

Status: PUBLISHED

Assigner: Linux

Published:

Updated: 2026-08-15T05:55:29.118Z

Reserved: 2026-08-09T03:40:39.918Z

Link: CVE-2026-72314

cve-icon Vulnrichment

No data.

cve-icon NVD

Status : Received

Published: 2026-08-15T06:22:04.223

Modified: 2026-08-15T06:22:04.223

Link: CVE-2026-72314

cve-icon Redhat

No data.

cve-icon OpenCVE Enrichment

No data.

Weaknesses

No weakness.