Evidence-led vulnerability intelligence · 2026-08-15 11:51 IST

CVE-2026-72155

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience In the case of the first block being locked (or the few first blocks), if the user want to fully unlock the device it has two possibilities: - either it asks to unlock the entire device, and this works; - or it asks to unlock just the block(s) that are currently locked, which fails. It fails because the conditions "can_be_top" and "can_be_bottom" are true. Indeed, in this case, we unlock everything, so the TB bit does not matter. However in the current implementation, use_top would be true (as this is the favourite option) and lock_len, which in practice should be reduced down to 0, is set to "nor->params->size - (ofs + len)" which is a positive number. This is wrong. An easy way is to simply add an extra condition. In the unlock() path, if we can achieve the same result from both sides, it means we unlock everything and lock_len must simply be 0. A comment is added to clarify that logic.

UNRATED · N/ALinux

Executive briefing

The source record describes: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mtd: spi-nor: swp: Improve locking user experience In the case of the first block being locked (or the few first blocks), if the user want to fully unlock the device it has two possibilities: - either it asks to unlock the entire device, and this works; - or it asks to unlock just the block(s) that are currently locked, which fails. It fails because the conditions "can_be_top" and "can_be_bottom" are true. Indeed, in this case, we unlock everything, so the TB bit does not matter. However in the current implementation, use_top would be true (as this is the favourite option) and lock_len, which in practice should be reduced down to 0, is set to "nor->params->size - (ofs + len)" which is a positive number. This is wrong. An easy way is to simply add an extra condition. In the unlock() path, if we can achieve the same result from both sides, it means we unlock everything and lock_len must simply be 0. A comment is added to clarify that logic. The practical risk depends on whether an affected product/version is present, reachable and configured in an exploitable way. Review the affected-product evidence and linked vendor advisories before assigning exposure status.

Assessment: Potential exposure only — validate the installed product, exact version, configuration and vendor applicability before treating an asset as confirmed vulnerable.

Evidence confidence: Limited Evidence-derived, not an exploitability verdict

Severity & attack characteristics

N/A / 10 ·

CVSS vector:

No CVSS vector is currently available in the source record.

Technical explanation & impact

The technical mechanism is not expanded beyond the source description unless a referenced advisory supplies additional evidence. Read the linked vendor/CERT advisories for root-cause detail.

Potential impact must be interpreted from the published CVSS impact metrics and the affected component. A CVSS impact score is not proof that a particular asset is exploitable.

Affected products and versions

NVD has not supplied machine-readable vulnerable CPE product/version entries for this CVE. This is an information gap, not proof that no products are affected. Check the vendor advisory references below.

Remediation & validation

  1. Identify exposure by comparing the affected product and version ranges with your asset inventory, SBOM and externally exposed services.
  2. Review the linked vendor security advisory or patch notes. Upgrade to a vendor-confirmed fixed release; do not infer a fixed version from the CVE description.
  3. Until patched, consider restricting network access or disabling the affected feature where operationally safe. These are temporary controls, not a substitute for a vendor fix.
  4. Validate the remediation with a version check and vulnerability rescan, then retain change evidence.

No fixed version is displayed unless it is explicitly established by a vendor advisory. Follow the vendor's release notes for exact product and branch applicability.

Vendor advisories, patches & exploit references

Information gaps & confidence notes

These gaps indicate missing source data. CVE Watch does not fill them with guessed product, exploit or patch details.

Last enrichment: 2026-11-07T16:38:49+00:00 · Source last modified: 2026-11-06T17:19:38.387

Open NVD record ← Back to CVE Watch

Threat intelligence, made actionable · CVE data sourced from the NVD