Affected: Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
neigh: let neigh_xmit take skb ownership
neigh_xmit always releases the skb, except when no neighbour table is found. But even the first added user of neigh_xmit (mpls) relied on neigh_xmit to release the skb (or queue it for tx).
sashiko reported: If neigh_xmit() is called with an uninitialized neighbor table (for example, NEIGH_ND_TABLE when IPv6 is disabled), it returns -EAFNOSUPPORT and bypasses its internal out_kfree_skb error path. Because the return value of neigh_xmit() is ignored here, does this leak the SKB?
Assume full ownership and remove the last code path that doesn't xmit or free skb.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
neigh: let neigh_xmit take skb ownership
neigh_xmit always releases the skb, except when no neighbour table is found. But even the first added user of neigh_xmit (mpls) relied on neigh_xmit to release the skb (or queue it for tx).
sashiko reported: If neigh_xmit() is called with an uninitialized neighbor table (for example, NEIGH_ND_TABLE when IPv6 is disabled), it returns -EAFNOSUPPORT and bypasses its internal out_kfree_skb error path. Because the return value of neigh_xmit() is ignored here, does this leak the SKB?
Assume full ownership and remove the last code path that doesn't xmit or free skb.
Affected: openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP4: kernel
The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself. Security Fix(es):
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts
With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once the writes are completed.
In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get, resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free, and further to kernel crashes with symptoms.
Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up. That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager, and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node before starting writes on the other node.
Which means that other than for "test cases", this code path is never taken in real life.
FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays. We still detect "write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them. We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent writes. If they do, that's their fault.(CVE-2025-38708)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: mwifiex: Initialize the chan_stats array to zero
The adapter->…
Security update for the Linux Kernel
Security update for the Linux Kernel
Affected: Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: linux-lts-xenial, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-aws-hwe, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe, Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge and 252 more
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: neigh: let neigh_xmit take skb ownership neigh_xmit always releases the skb, except when no neighbour table is found. But even the first added user of neigh_xmit (mpls) relied on neigh_xmit to release the skb (or queue it for tx). sashiko reported: If neigh_xmit() is called with an uninitialized neighbor table (for example, NEIGH_ND_TABLE when IPv6 is disabled), it returns -EAFNOSUPPORT and bypasses its internal out_kfree_skb error path. Because the return value of neigh_xmit() is ignored here, does this leak the SKB? Assume full ownership and remove the last code path that doesn't xmit or free skb.
Ein entfernter Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um Sicherheitsvorkehrungen zu umgehen, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand herbeizuführen und weitere, nicht näher spezifizierte Auswirkungen zu erzielen.