CVE-2026-53047

CVE-2026-53047

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect sizeof in phys array reallocation The krealloc() call for cap_info->phys in __efi_capsule_setup_info() uses sizeof(phys_addr_t *) instead of sizeof(phys_addr_t), which might be causing an undersized allocation. The allocation is also inconsistent with the initial array allocation in efi_capsule_open() that allocates one entry with sizeof(phys_addr_t), and the efi_capsule_write() function that stores phys_addr_t values (not pointers) via page_to_phys(). On 64-bit systems where sizeof(phys_addr_t) == sizeof(phys_addr_t *), this goes unnoticed. On 32-bit systems with PAE where phys_addr_t is 64-bit but pointers are 32-bit, this allocates half the required space, which might lead to a heap buffer overflow when storing physical addresses. This is similar to the bug fixed in commit fccfa646ef36 ("efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect allocation size") which fixed the same issue at the initial...

CVE-2026-53047

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect sizeof in phys array reallocation The krealloc() call for cap_info->phys in __efi_capsule_setup_info() uses sizeof(phys_addr_t *) instead of sizeof(phys_addr_t), which might be causing an undersized allocation. The allocation is also inconsistent with the initial array allocation in efi_capsule_open() that allocates one entry with sizeof(phys_addr_t), and the efi_capsule_write() function that stores phys_addr_t values (not pointers) via page_to_phys(). On 64-bit systems where sizeof(phys_addr_t) == sizeof(phys_addr_t *), this goes unnoticed. On 32-bit systems with PAE where phys_addr_t is 64-bit but pointers are 32-bit, this allocates half the required space, which might lead to a heap buffer overflow when storing physical addresses. This is similar to the bug fixed in commit fccfa646ef36 ("efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect allocation size") which fixed the same issue at the initial...

CVE-2026-53047

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect sizeof in phys array reallocation The krealloc() call for cap_info->phys in __efi_capsule_setup_info() uses sizeof(phys_addr_t *) instead of sizeof(phys_addr_t), which might be causing an undersized allocation. The allocation is also inconsistent with the initial array allocation in efi_capsule_open() that allocates one entry with sizeof(phys_addr_t), and the efi_capsule_write() function that stores phys_addr_t values (not pointers) via page_to_phys(). On 64-bit systems where sizeof(phys_addr_t) == sizeof(phys_addr_t *), this goes unnoticed. On 32-bit systems with PAE where phys_addr_t is 64-bit but pointers are 32-bit, this allocates half the required space, which might lead to a heap buffer overflow when storing physical addresses. This is similar to the bug fixed in commit fccfa646ef36 ("efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect allocation size") which fixed the same issue at the initi

CVE-2026-53047

efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect sizeof in phys array reallocation

GHSA-jp44-vj5f-4fr8

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect sizeof in phys array reallocation The krealloc() call for cap_info->phys in __efi_capsule_setup_info() uses sizeof(phys_addr_t *) instead of sizeof(phys_addr_t), which might be causing an undersized allocation. The allocation is also inconsistent with the initial array allocation in efi_capsule_open() that allocates one entry with sizeof(phys_addr_t), and the efi_capsule_write() function that stores phys_addr_t values (not pointers) via page_to_phys(). On 64-bit systems where sizeof(phys_addr_t) == sizeof(phys_addr_t *), this goes unnoticed. On 32-bit systems with PAE where phys_addr_t is 64-bit but pointers are 32-bit, this allocates half the required space, which might lead to a heap buffer overflow when storing physical addresses. This is similar to the bug fixed in commit fccfa646ef36 ("efi/capsule-loader: fix incorrect allocation size") which fixed the same issue at the in...