Most recent entries from all

bdu:2024-08738

BELL-CVE-2024-42239

Affected: Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts

certfr-2024-avi-0779 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux de SUSE. Certaines d'entre elles permettent à un at…

certfr-2024-avi-0779

EUVD-2026-313081

fkie_cve-2024-42239

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

bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled

Given a schedule:

timer1 cb timer2 cb

bpf_timer_cancel(timer2); bpf_timer_cancel(timer1);

Both bpf_timer_cancel calls would wait for the other callback to finish executing, introducing a lockup.

Add an atomic_t count named 'cancelling' in bpf_hrtimer. This keeps track of all in-flight cancellation requests for a given BPF timer. Whenever cancelling a BPF timer, we must check if we have outstanding cancellation requests, and if so, we must fail the operation with an error (-EDEADLK) since cancellation is synchronous and waits for the callback to finish executing. This implies that we can enter a deadlock situation involving two or more timer callbacks executing in parallel and attempting to cancel one another.

Note that we avoid incrementing the cancelling counter for the target timer (the one being cancelled) if bpf_timer_cancel is not invoked from a callback, to avoid spurious errors. The whole point of detecting cur->cancelling and returning -EDEADLK is to not enter a busy wait loop (which may or may not lead to a lockup). This does not apply in case the caller is in a non-callback context, the other side can continue to cancel as it sees fit without running into errors.

Background on prior attempts:

Earlier versions of this patch used a bool 'cancelling' bit and used the following pattern under timer->lock to publish cancellation statu…

GHSA-ggh4-5hvc-554r

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

bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled

Given a schedule:

timer1 cb timer2 cb

bpf_timer_cancel(timer2); bpf_timer_cancel(timer1);

Both bpf_timer_cancel calls would wait for the other callback to finish executing, introducing a lockup.

Background on prior attempts:

Earlier versions of this patch used a bool 'cancelling' bit and used the following pattern under timer->lock to publish cancellation statu…

msrc_CVE-2024-42239 — bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled

msrc_CVE-2024-42239

OESA-2024-2124 — kernel security update

Affected: openEuler:24.03-LTS: kernel

The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself. Security Fix(es): In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bna: ensure the copied buf is NUL terminated Currently, we allocate a nbytes-sized kernel buffer and copy nbytes from userspace to that buffer. Later, we use sscanf on this buffer but we don't ensure that the string is terminated inside the buffer, this can lead to OOB read when using sscanf. Fix this issue by using memdup_user_nul instead of memdup_user.(CVE-2024-36934) In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: fix potential kernel bug due to lack of writeback flag waiting Destructive writes to a block device on which nilfs2 is mounted can cause a kernel bug in the folio/page writeback start routine or writeback end routine (__folio_start_writeback in the log below): kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:3070! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI ... RIP: 0010:__folio_start_writeback+0xbaa/0x10e0 Code: 25 ff 0f 00 00 0f 84 18 01 00 00 e8 40 ca c6 ff e9 17 f6 ff ff e8 36 ca c6 ff 4c 89 f7 48 c7 c6 80 c0 12 84 e8 e7 b3 0f 00 90 <0f> 0b e8 1f ca c6 ff 4c 89 f7 48 c7 c6 a0 c6 12 84 e8 d0 b3 0f 00 ... Call Trace: <TASK> nilfs_segctor_do_construct+0x4654/0x69d0 [nilfs2] nilfs_segctor_construct+0x181/0x6b0 [nilfs2] nilfs_segctor_thread+0x548/0x11c0 [nilfs2] kthread+0x2f0/0x390 ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 <…

SUSE-SU-2024:3190-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

UBUNTU-CVE-2024-42239

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 133 more

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled Given a schedule: timer1 cb timer2 cb bpf_timer_cancel(timer2); bpf_timer_cancel(timer1); Both bpf_timer_cancel calls would wait for the other callback to finish executing, introducing a lockup. Add an atomic_t count named 'cancelling' in bpf_hrtimer. This keeps track of all in-flight cancellation requests for a given BPF timer. Whenever cancelling a BPF timer, we must check if we have outstanding cancellation requests, and if so, we must fail the operation with an error (-EDEADLK) since cancellation is synchronous and waits for the callback to finish executing. This implies that we can enter a deadlock situation involving two or more timer callbacks executing in parallel and attempting to cancel one another. Note that we avoid incrementing the cancelling counter for the target timer (the one being cancelled) if bpf_timer_cancel is not invoked from a callback, to avoid spurious errors. The whole point of detecting cur->cancelling and returning -EDEADLK is to not enter a busy wait loop (which may or may not lead to a lockup). This does not apply in case the caller is in a non-callback context, the other side can continue to cancel as it sees fit without running into errors. Background on prior attempts: Earlier versions of this patch used a bool 'cancelling' bit and used the following pattern under timer->lock to publish cancellation status. lock(t…

WID-SEC-W-2024-1788 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen nicht spezifizierten Angriff

Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen.