CVE-2026-31424

CVE-2026-31424

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: x_tables: restrict xt_check_match/xt_check_target extensions for NFPROTO_ARP Weiming Shi says: xt_match and xt_target structs registered with NFPROTO_UNSPEC can be loaded by any protocol family through nft_compat. When such a match/target sets .hooks to restrict which hooks it may run on, the bitmask uses NF_INET_* constants. This is only correct for families whose hook layout matches NF_INET_*: IPv4, IPv6, INET, and bridge all share the same five hooks (PRE_ROUTING ... POST_ROUTING). ARP only has three hooks (IN=0, OUT=1, FORWARD=2) with different semantics. Because NF_ARP_OUT == 1 == NF_INET_LOCAL_IN, the .hooks validation silently passes for the wrong reasons, allowing matches to run on ARP chains where the hook assumptions (e.g. state->in being set on input hooks) do not hold. This leads to NULL pointer dereferences; xt_devgroup is one concrete example: Oops: general protection fault, probably for non...

CVE-2026-31424

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: x_tables: restrict xt_check_match/xt_check_target extensions for NFPROTO_ARP Weiming Shi says: xt_match and xt_target structs registered with NFPROTO_UNSPEC can be loaded by any protocol family through nft_compat. When such a match/target sets .hooks to restrict which hooks it may run on, the bitmask uses NF_INET_* constants. This is only correct for families whose hook layout matches NF_INET_*: IPv4, IPv6, INET, and bridge all share the same five hooks (PRE_ROUTING ... POST_ROUTING). ARP only has three hooks (IN=0, OUT=1, FORWARD=2) with different semantics. Because NF_ARP_OUT == 1 == NF_INET_LOCAL_IN, the .hooks validation silently passes for the wrong reasons, allowing matches to run on ARP chains where the hook assumptions (e.g. state->in being set on input hooks) do not hold. This leads to NULL pointer dereferences; xt_devgroup is one concrete example: Oops: general protection fault, probably for non...

CVE-2026-31424

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: x_tables: restrict xt_check_match/xt_check_target extensions for NFPROTO_ARP Weiming Shi says: xt_match and xt_target structs registered with NFPROTO_UNSPEC can be loaded by any protocol family through nft_compat. When such a match/target sets .hooks to restrict which hooks it may run on, the bitmask uses NF_INET_* constants. This is only correct for families whose hook layout matches NF_INET_*: IPv4, IPv6, INET, and bridge all share the same five hooks (PRE_ROUTING ... POST_ROUTING). ARP only has three hooks (IN=0, OUT=1, FORWARD=2) with different semantics. Because NF_ARP_OUT == 1 == NF_INET_LOCAL_IN, the .hooks validation silently passes for the wrong reasons, allowing matches to run on ARP chains where the hook assumptions (e.g. state->in being set on input hooks) do not hold. This leads to NULL pointer dereferences; xt_devgroup is one concrete example: Oops: general protection fault, probably for

CVE-2026-31424

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

GHSA-9r6p-6xq4-mrq9

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: x_tables: restrict xt_check_match/xt_check_target extensions for NFPROTO_ARP Weiming Shi says: xt_match and xt_target structs registered with NFPROTO_UNSPEC can be loaded by any protocol family through nft_compat. When such a match/target sets .hooks to restrict which hooks it may run on, the bitmask uses NF_INET_* constants. This is only correct for families whose hook layout matches NF_INET_*: IPv4, IPv6, INET, and bridge all share the same five hooks (PRE_ROUTING ... POST_ROUTING). ARP only has three hooks (IN=0, OUT=1, FORWARD=2) with different semantics. Because NF_ARP_OUT == 1 == NF_INET_LOCAL_IN, the .hooks validation silently passes for the wrong reasons, allowing matches to run on ARP chains where the hook assumptions (e.g. state->in being set on input hooks) do not hold. This leads to NULL pointer dereferences; xt_devgroup is one concrete example: Oops: general protection fault, probably f...