Most recent entries from all

bdu:2024-09965

BELL-CVE-2024-35917

Affected: Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts

certfr-2024-avi-0526 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux de SUSE. Certaines d'entre elles permettent une élé…

certfr-2024-avi-0526

EUVD-2026-312779

fkie_cve-2024-35917

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic

Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]:

[<0000000000000002>] 0x2 [<00000000009d5cde>] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250 [<000000000033145a>] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00 [<00000000003319dc>] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50 [<0000000000c4382c>] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300 [<0000000000c59a40>] system_call+0x70/0x98

This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of the return and the target addresses.

Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments' left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot alias.

This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard:

When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object ...

From the C's perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the GCC's alias analysis.

The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets.

[1] https…

GHSA-6p8g-x822-g299

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic

Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]:

This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of the return and the target addresses.

This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard:

When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object ...

From the C's perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the GCC's alias analysis.

The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets.

[1] https…

msrc_CVE-2024-35917 — s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic

msrc_CVE-2024-35917

SUSE-SU-2024:2135-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

UBUNTU-CVE-2024-35917

Affected: Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 84 more

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]: [<0000000000000002>] 0x2 [<00000000009d5cde>] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250 [<000000000033145a>] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00 [<00000000003319dc>] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50 [<0000000000c4382c>] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300 [<0000000000c59a40>] system_call+0x70/0x98 This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of the return and the target addresses. Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments' left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot alias. This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard: When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object ... From the C's perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the GCC's alias analysis. The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets. [1] https://lore.ke…

WID-SEC-W-2024-1188 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen Denial of Service

Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff durchzuführen.