Поиск уязвимостей
Количество 11
Количество 11
CVE-2022-49760
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case even though w...
CVE-2022-49760
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case even though w...
CVE-2022-49760
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" cas
CVE-2022-49760
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ...
GHSA-jwgp-qffh-vpgp
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" ...
BDU:2025-06305
Уязвимость компонентов mm/hugetlb ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании
ALT-PU-2023-1124
ALT-PU-2023-1124: package `kernel-image-un-def` update to version 6.1.8-alt1
ROS-20250529-01
Множественные уязвимости kernel-lt
ALT-PU-2023-1126
ALT-PU-2023-1126: package `kernel-image-mp` update to version 6.1.8-alt1
ALT-PU-2024-4843
ALT-PU-2024-4843: package `kernel-image-rpi-un` update to version 6.1.77-alt1
ALT-PU-2024-4263
ALT-PU-2024-4263: package `kernel-image-rpi-un` update to version 6.1.77-alt1
Уязвимостей на страницу
Уязвимость | CVSS | EPSS | Опубликовано | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2022-49760 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case even though w... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | больше 1 года назад | |
CVE-2022-49760 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case even though w... | CVSS3: 4.1 | 0% Низкий | больше 1 года назад | |
CVE-2022-49760 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" cas | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | больше 1 года назад | |
CVE-2022-49760 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | больше 1 года назад | |
GHSA-jwgp-qffh-vpgp In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" ... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | больше 1 года назад | |
BDU:2025-06305 Уязвимость компонентов mm/hugetlb ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании | CVSS3: 7.8 | 0% Низкий | больше 1 года назад | |
ALT-PU-2023-1124 ALT-PU-2023-1124: package `kernel-image-un-def` update to version 6.1.8-alt1 | CVSS3: 7.8 | почти 4 года назад | ||
ROS-20250529-01 Множественные уязвимости kernel-lt | CVSS3: 7.8 | больше 1 года назад | ||
ALT-PU-2023-1126 ALT-PU-2023-1126: package `kernel-image-mp` update to version 6.1.8-alt1 | CVSS3: 7.8 | почти 4 года назад | ||
ALT-PU-2024-4843 ALT-PU-2024-4843: package `kernel-image-rpi-un` update to version 6.1.77-alt1 | CVSS3: 10 | больше 2 лет назад | ||
ALT-PU-2024-4263 ALT-PU-2024-4263: package `kernel-image-rpi-un` update to version 6.1.77-alt1 | CVSS3: 10 | больше 2 лет назад |
Уязвимостей на страницу