Описание
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.
Пакеты
| Пакет | Статус | Версия исправления | Релиз | Тип |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| linux | fixed | 6.11.4-1 | package | |
| linux | fixed | 6.1.115-1 | bookworm | package |
Примечания
https://git.kernel.org/linus/602babaa84d627923713acaf5f7e9a4369e77473 (6.12-rc1)
EPSS
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.
EPSS