Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in software vulnerability detection, particularly after domain-specific Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). However, it remains unclear whether these models genuinely internalize vulnerability root causes or merely exploit surface-level functional patterns. While prior work documented related failures on pre-trained or zero-shot models, the SFT process itself, and how explicit reasoning supervision modulates it, remains under-explored. We study fine-tuned decoder-only LLMs under vanilla SFT and SFT with reasoning supervision, identifying a failure mode we term the Semantic Trap, characterized by three symptoms: pairing-sensitive performance, gap-dictated decisions, and fragility to semantic-preserving changes. To probe this, we propose TrapEval, an evaluation framework comprising two real-world datasets, V2P (vulnerable paired with patched code) and V2N (vulnerable paired with unrelated normal code), alongside semantic perturbations, CodeBLEU-based gap analysis, and an LLM-assisted reasoning failure taxonomy. Evaluating five representative LLMs fine-tuned with and without explicit reasoning (Chain-of-Thought), our results show vanilla SFT yields deceptively high scores on unpaired data (V2N) while failing all three symptoms. Models suffer high false-positive rates on V2P, degrade under perturbations, and exhibit a systematic dependency on the textual gap between vulnerable and patched code. Finetuning with explicit reasoning reduces these symptoms but costs recall; its lack of measurable gap-dependency partly reflects a floor effect rather than escaping the trap. Furthermore, our taxonomy reveals these models still misinterpret control flow and hallucinate API behavior, indicating current fine-tuning mitigates but does not eliminate reliance on surface features.