CVE-2024-47141

CVE-2024-47141

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data When two client of the same gpio call pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, we are seeing NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. Let's say two processes A, B executing in pin_request() for the same pin and process A updates the desc->mux_usecount but not yet updated the desc->mux_owner while process B see the desc->mux_usecount which got updated by A path and further executes strcmp and while accessing desc->mux_owner it crashes with NULL pointer. Serialize the access to mux related setting with a mutex lock. cpu0 (process A) cpu1(process B) pinctrl_select_state() { pinctrl_select_state() { pin_request() { pin_request() { ... .... } else { desc->mux_usecount++; desc->mux_usecount && strcmp(desc->mux_owner, owner)) { if (desc->mux_usecount > 1) return 0; desc->mux_owner = owner; } }

CVE-2024-47141

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data When two client of the same gpio call pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, we are seeing NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. Let's say two processes A, B executing in pin_request() for the same pin and process A updates the desc->mux_usecount but not yet updated the desc->mux_owner while process B see the desc->mux_usecount which got updated by A path and further executes strcmp and while accessing desc->mux_owner it crashes with NULL pointer. Serialize the access to mux related setting with a mutex lock. cpu0 (process A)cpu1(process B) pinctrl_select_state() { pinctrl_select_state() { pin_request() {pin_request() { ... .... } else { desc->mux_usecount++; desc->mux_usecount && strcmp(desc->mux_owner, owner)) { if (desc->mux_usecount > 1) return 0; desc->mux_owner = owner; }}

CVE-2024-47141

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data When two client of the same gpio call pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, we are seeing NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. Let's say two processes A, B executing in pin_request() for the same pin and process A updates the desc->mux_usecount but not yet updated the desc->mux_owner while process B see the desc->mux_usecount which got updated by A path and further executes strcmp and while accessing desc->mux_owner it crashes with NULL pointer. Serialize the access to mux related setting with a mutex lock. cpu0 (process A) cpu1(process B) pinctrl_select_state() { pinctrl_select_state() { pin_request() { pin_request() { ... .... } else { desc->mux_usecount++; desc->mux_usecount && strcmp(desc->mux_owner, owner)) { if (desc->mux_usecount > 1) return 0; d

CVE-2024-47141

Описание отсутствует

GHSA-ff75-3hc4-j344

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data When two client of the same gpio call pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, we are seeing NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. Let's say two processes A, B executing in pin_request() for the same pin and process A updates the desc->mux_usecount but not yet updated the desc->mux_owner while process B see the desc->mux_usecount which got updated by A path and further executes strcmp and while accessing desc->mux_owner it crashes with NULL pointer. Serialize the access to mux related setting with a mutex lock. cpu0 (process A) cpu1(process B) pinctrl_select_state() { pinctrl_select_state() { pin_request() { pin_request() { ... .... } else { desc->mux_usecount++; desc->mux_usecount && strcmp(desc->mux_owner, owner)) { if (desc->mux_usecount > 1) return 0; ...