FlawAtlas
Search the atlas
CVE-2026-46252 Not scored

regulator: core: fix locking in regulator_resolve_supply() error path

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.

Exploit probability 0.1%
Published June 3, 2026
Required by Not available
Last source change July 22, 2026

02 / AFFECTED SOFTWARE

Affected packages

Unknown Unknown
Linux Kernel

03 / CONNECTIONS

Connected vulnerabilities

04 / EVIDENCE

Source records

Open Source Vulnerabilities CVE-2026-46252

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.

View original source

05 / REFERENCES

Further evidence