Analityczne wykorzystywanie plików cookies
CVE-2025-38538: linux kernel vulnerability
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: nbpfaxi: Fix memory corruption in probe() The nbpf->chan[] array is allocated earlier in the nbpf_probe() function and it has "num_channels" elements. These three loops iterate one element farther than they should and corrupt memory. The changes to the second loop are more involved. In this case, we're copying data from the irqbuf[] array into the nbpf->chan[] array. If the data in irqbuf[i] is the error IRQ then we skip it, so the iterators are not in sync. I added a check to ensure that we don't go beyond the end of the irqbuf[] array. I'm pretty sure this can't happen, but it seemed harmless to add a check. On the other hand, after the loop has ended there is a check to ensure that the "chan" iterator is where we expect it to be. In the original code we went one element beyond the end of the array so the iterator wasn't in the correct place and it would always return -EINVAL. However, now it will always be in the correct place. I deleted the check since we know the result.
- CVSS
- 7.8 HIGH
- EPSS
- 5.24%
- Aktywnie wykorzystywana
- brak w KEV
- Produkt
- linux kernel
Co wiadomo
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dmaengine: nbpfaxi: Fix memory corruption in probe() The nbpf->chan[] array is allocated earlier in the nbpf_probe() function and it has "num_channels" elements. These three loops iterate one element farther than they should and corrupt memory. The changes to the second loop are more involved. In this case, we're copying data from the irqbuf[] array into the nbpf->chan[] array. If the data in irqbuf[i] is the error IRQ then we skip it, so the iterators are not in sync. I added a check to ensure that we don't go beyond the end of the irqbuf[] array. I'm pretty sure this can't happen, but it seemed harmless to add a check. On the other hand, after the loop has ended there is a check to ensure that the "chan" iterator is where we expect it to be. In the original code we went one element beyond the end of the array so the iterator wasn't in the correct place and it would always return -EINVAL. However, now it will always be in the correct place. I deleted the check since we know the result.