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.
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's serial subsystem. This vulnerability occurs in the uart_shutdown() function, where a null pointer dereference can happen if the HUPCL flag is set. A local attacker could potentially exploit this flaw to cause a system crash, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).
Меры по смягчению последствий
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
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 | 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