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.
Затронутые пакеты
| Платформа | Пакет | Состояние | Рекомендация | Релиз |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel | Out of support scope | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel-rt | Out of support scope | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel | Will not fix | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel-rt | Will not fix | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel-rt | Will not fix | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Fixed | RHSA-2025:6966 | 13.05.2025 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Fixed | RHSA-2025:6966 | 13.05.2025 |
Показывать по
Дополнительная информация
Статус:
EPSS
5.5 Medium
CVSS3
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: s ...
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
5.5 Medium
CVSS3