BDU:2026-04329

CVE-2025-39904

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64: kexec: initialize kexec_buf struct in load_other_segments() Patch series "kexec: Fix invalid field access". The kexec_buf structure was previously declared without initialization. commit bf454ec31add ("kexec_file: allow to place kexec_buf randomly") added a field that is always read but not consistently populated by all architectures. This un-initialized field will contain garbage. This is also triggering a UBSAN warning when the uninitialized data was accessed: ------------[ cut here ]------------ UBSAN: invalid-load in ./include/linux/kexec.h:210:10 load of value 252 is not a valid value for type '_Bool' Zero-initializing kexec_buf at declaration ensures all fields are cleanly set, preventing future instances of uninitialized memory being used. An initial fix was already landed for arm64[0], and this patchset fixes the problem on the remaining arm64 code and on riscv, as raised by Mark. Discussions about t...

CVE-2025-39904

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64: kexec: initialize kexec_buf struct in load_other_segments() Patch series "kexec: Fix invalid field access". The kexec_buf structure was previously declared without initialization. commit bf454ec31add ("kexec_file: allow to place kexec_buf randomly") added a field that is always read but not consistently populated by all architectures. This un-initialized field will contain garbage. This is also triggering a UBSAN warning when the uninitialized data was accessed: ------------[ cut here ]------------ UBSAN: invalid-load in ./include/linux/kexec.h:210:10 load of value 252 is not a valid value for type '_Bool' Zero-initializing kexec_buf at declaration ensures all fields are cleanly set, preventing future instances of uninitialized memory being used. An initial fix was already landed for arm64[0], and this patchset fixes the problem on the remaining arm64 code and on riscv, as raised by Mark. Discussions about ...

CVE-2025-39904

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64: kexec: initialize kexec_buf struct in load_other_segments() Patch series "kexec: Fix invalid field access". The kexec_buf structure was previously declared without initialization. commit bf454ec31add ("kexec_file: allow to place kexec_buf randomly") added a field that is always read but not consistently populated by all architectures. This un-initialized field will contain garbage. This is also triggering a UBSAN warning when the uninitialized data was accessed: ------------[ cut here ]------------ UBSAN: invalid-load in ./include/linux/kexec.h:210:10 load of value 252 is not a valid value for type '_Bool' Zero-initializing kexec_buf at declaration ensures all fields are cleanly set, preventing future instances of uninitialized memory being used. An initial fix was already landed for arm64[0], and this patchset fixes the problem on the remaining arm64 code and on riscv, as raised by Mark. Discussion

CVE-2025-39904

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

GHSA-9j3f-w66p-jqvg

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64: kexec: initialize kexec_buf struct in load_other_segments() Patch series "kexec: Fix invalid field access". The kexec_buf structure was previously declared without initialization. commit bf454ec31add ("kexec_file: allow to place kexec_buf randomly") added a field that is always read but not consistently populated by all architectures. This un-initialized field will contain garbage. This is also triggering a UBSAN warning when the uninitialized data was accessed: ------------[ cut here ]------------ UBSAN: invalid-load in ./include/linux/kexec.h:210:10 load of value 252 is not a valid value for type '_Bool' Zero-initializing kexec_buf at declaration ensures all fields are cleanly set, preventing future instances of uninitialized memory being used. An initial fix was already landed for arm64[0], and this patchset fixes the problem on the remaining arm64 code and on riscv, as raised by Mark. Discuss...