CVE-2026-72314: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK Compare agains

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK Compare agains

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 ove

Description from the National Vulnerability Database, published by 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

What it means for a small business

Linux is on the computers, phones or browsers your team uses every day. Turn on automatic updates and restart: most of these fixes only take effect after a restart.

How likely is an attack? The Exploit Prediction Scoring System, run by FIRST (the global association of security response teams), puts the odds of this one being exploited in the next 30 days at 0.18%, higher than 7% of CVEs. That’s low, but low isn’t zero, and the odds jump the day someone publishes an exploit. Scored October 31, 2026, updated daily.

Check your own setup

Website check: reads what your site runs from the outside (WordPress version, plugins it can see, old server software) and matches it against this database.
Server check: what your web server says about itself, and whether that version has known flaws.

Sources

Part of the Huttenlocher Technologies vulnerability database, refreshed twice a day from CISA and the NVD. The title, category and plain-language guidance are ours; check the linked record before acting on a detail. This is general guidance, not a review of your systems.

Weekly security brief

The flaws that hit local websites, every Friday.

One short email: what got exploited this week, which WordPress plugins broke, and what to check. Unsubscribe in one click.