The short of it is they declared the name of a function to be a vulnerability, because some developers were confused by the name and used it when they shouldn’t.
A fine critique of things, but the CVE is considered closed by merely renaming the function, and downstream misuses were considered separate issues.
Probably not even that.
For example: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/cve-2026-43073
The short of it is they declared the name of a function to be a vulnerability, because some developers were confused by the name and used it when they shouldn’t.
A fine critique of things, but the CVE is considered closed by merely renaming the function, and downstream misuses were considered separate issues.
A “vulnerability” fixed by:
-SYM_FUNC_START(__copy_user_nocache) +SYM_FUNC_START(copy_to_nontemporal)