Most recent entries from all

bdu:2025-12275

BELL-CVE-2025-37865

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

certfr-2025-avi-0463 — De multiples vulnérabilités ont été découvertes dans le noyau Linux de Debian LTS. Elles permettent à un attaquant de p…

certfr-2025-avi-0463

EUVD-2026-314289

fkie_cve-2025-37865

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

net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported

Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN from a user port fails with -ENOENT: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_lQXNP0s5-IiJzd@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -> mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), which tries to find an MST entry in &chip->msts associated with the SID, but fails and returns -ENOENT as such.

But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put() not exit early:

if (!sid) return 0;

And the answer seems to be simple: the sid comes from vlan.sid which supposedly was previously populated by mv88e6xxx_vtu_get(). But some chip->info->ops->vtu_getnext() implementations do not populate vlan.sid, for example see mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). In that case, later in mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() we are using a garbage sid which is just residual stack memory.

Testing for sid == 0 covers all cases of a non-bridge VLAN or a bridge VLAN mapped to the default MSTI. For some chips, SID 0 is valid and installed by mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(). A chip which does not support the STU would implicitly only support mapping all VLANs to the default MSTI, so although SID 0 is not valid, it would be sufficient, if we were to zero-initialize the vlan structure, to fix the bug, due to the coincidence that a test…

GHSA-89h6-q3w2-mjxm

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

net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported

Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN from a user port fails with -ENOENT: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_lQXNP0s5-IiJzd@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -> mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), which tries to find an MST entry in &chip->msts associated with the SID, but fails and returns -ENOENT as such.

But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put() not exit early:

if (!sid) return 0;

msrc_CVE-2025-37865 — net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported

msrc_CVE-2025-37865

OESA-2025-1878 — 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:

bpf: consider that tail calls invalidate packet pointers

Tail-called programs could execute any of the helpers that invalidate packet pointers. Hence, conservatively assume that each tail call invalidates packet pointers.

Making the change in bpf_helper_changes_pkt_data() automatically makes use of check_cfg() logic that computes 'changes_pkt_data' effect for global sub-programs, such that the following program could be rejected:

int tail_call(struct __sk_buff *sk) { bpf_tail_call_static(sk, &jmp_table, 0); return 0; }

SEC("tc") int not_safe(struct __sk_buff *sk) { int *p = (void *)(long)sk->data; ... make p valid ... tail_call(sk); *p = 42; /* this is unsafe */ ... }

The tc_bpf2bpf.c:subprog_tc() needs change: mark it as a function that can invalidate packet pointers. Otherwise, it can't be freplaced with tailcall_freplace.c:entry_freplace() that does a tail call.(CVE-2024-58237)

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

RDMA/rxe: Fix the warning "__rxe_cleanup+0x12c/0x170 [rdma_rxe]"

The Call Trace is as below: " <TASK> ? show_regs.cold+0x1a/0x1f ? __rxe_cleanup+0x12c/0x170 [rdma_rxe] ? __warn+0x84/0xd0 ? __rxe_cleanup+0x12c/0x170 [rdma_rxe] ? report_bug+0x105/0x180 ? han…

SUSE-SU-2025:02249-1 — Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

UBUNTU-CVE-2025-37865

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 114 more

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN from a user port fails with -ENOENT: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_lQXNP0s5-IiJzd@shell.armlinux.org.uk/ This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -> mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), which tries to find an MST entry in &chip->msts associated with the SID, but fails and returns -ENOENT as such. But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put() not exit early: if (!sid) return 0; And the answer seems to be simple: the sid comes from vlan.sid which supposedly was previously populated by mv88e6xxx_vtu_get(). But some chip->info->ops->vtu_getnext() implementations do not populate vlan.sid, for example see mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). In that case, later in mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() we are using a garbage sid which is just residual stack memory. Testing for sid == 0 covers all cases of a non-bridge VLAN or a bridge VLAN mapped to the default MSTI. For some chips, SID 0 is valid and installed by mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(). A chip which does not support the STU would implicitly only support mapping all VLANs to the default MSTI, so although SID 0 is not valid, it would be sufficient, if we were to zero-initialize the vlan structure, to fix the bug, due to the coincidence that a test for vla…

WID-SEC-W-2025-0991 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff und weitere, nicht näher spezifizierte Angriffe durchzuführen.