Количество 5
Количество 5
CVE-2025-40096
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies When adding dependencies with drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), that function consumes the fence reference both on success and failure, so in the latter case the dma_fence_put() on the error path (xarray failed to expand) is a double free. Interestingly this bug appears to have been present ever since commit ebd5f74255b9 ("drm/sched: Add dependency tracking"), since the code back then looked like this: drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(): ... for (i = 0; i < fence_count; i++) { ret = drm_sched_job_add_dependency(job, fences[i]); if (ret) break; } for (; i < fence_count; i++) dma_fence_put(fences[i]); Which means for the failing 'i' the dma_fence_put was already a double free. Possibly there were no users at that time, or the test cases were insufficient to hit it. The bug was then only noticed and fixed after commit 9c2ba265352a ("drm/sc...
CVE-2025-40096
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies When adding dependencies with drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), that function consumes the fence reference both on success and failure, so in the latter case the dma_fence_put() on the error path (xarray failed to expand) is a double free. Interestingly this bug appears to have been present ever since commit ebd5f74255b9 ("drm/sched: Add dependency tracking"), since the code back then looked like this: drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(): ... for (i = 0; i < fence_count; i++) { ret = drm_sched_job_add_dependency(job, fences[i]); if (ret) break; } for (; i < fence_count; i++) dma_fence_put(fences[i]); Which means for the failing 'i' the dma_fence_put was already a double free. Possibly there were no users at that time, or the test cases were insuff
CVE-2025-40096
drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies
CVE-2025-40096
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: d ...
GHSA-xpm8-g6rj-74pw
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies When adding dependencies with drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), that function consumes the fence reference both on success and failure, so in the latter case the dma_fence_put() on the error path (xarray failed to expand) is a double free. Interestingly this bug appears to have been present ever since commit ebd5f74255b9 ("drm/sched: Add dependency tracking"), since the code back then looked like this: drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(): ... for (i = 0; i < fence_count; i++) { ret = drm_sched_job_add_dependency(job, fences[i]); if (ret) break; } for (; i < fence_count; i++) dma_fence_put(fences[i]); Which means for the failing 'i' the dma_fence_put was already a double free. Possibly there were no users at that time, or the test cases were ins...
Уязвимостей на страницу
Уязвимость | CVSS | EPSS | Опубликовано | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2025-40096 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies When adding dependencies with drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), that function consumes the fence reference both on success and failure, so in the latter case the dma_fence_put() on the error path (xarray failed to expand) is a double free. Interestingly this bug appears to have been present ever since commit ebd5f74255b9 ("drm/sched: Add dependency tracking"), since the code back then looked like this: drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(): ... for (i = 0; i < fence_count; i++) { ret = drm_sched_job_add_dependency(job, fences[i]); if (ret) break; } for (; i < fence_count; i++) dma_fence_put(fences[i]); Which means for the failing 'i' the dma_fence_put was already a double free. Possibly there were no users at that time, or the test cases were insufficient to hit it. The bug was then only noticed and fixed after commit 9c2ba265352a ("drm/sc... | 0% Низкий | 11 дней назад | ||
CVE-2025-40096 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies When adding dependencies with drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), that function consumes the fence reference both on success and failure, so in the latter case the dma_fence_put() on the error path (xarray failed to expand) is a double free. Interestingly this bug appears to have been present ever since commit ebd5f74255b9 ("drm/sched: Add dependency tracking"), since the code back then looked like this: drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(): ... for (i = 0; i < fence_count; i++) { ret = drm_sched_job_add_dependency(job, fences[i]); if (ret) break; } for (; i < fence_count; i++) dma_fence_put(fences[i]); Which means for the failing 'i' the dma_fence_put was already a double free. Possibly there were no users at that time, or the test cases were insuff | 0% Низкий | 11 дней назад | ||
CVE-2025-40096 drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies | 0% Низкий | 11 дней назад | ||
CVE-2025-40096 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: d ... | 0% Низкий | 11 дней назад | ||
GHSA-xpm8-g6rj-74pw In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/sched: Fix potential double free in drm_sched_job_add_resv_dependencies When adding dependencies with drm_sched_job_add_dependency(), that function consumes the fence reference both on success and failure, so in the latter case the dma_fence_put() on the error path (xarray failed to expand) is a double free. Interestingly this bug appears to have been present ever since commit ebd5f74255b9 ("drm/sched: Add dependency tracking"), since the code back then looked like this: drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(): ... for (i = 0; i < fence_count; i++) { ret = drm_sched_job_add_dependency(job, fences[i]); if (ret) break; } for (; i < fence_count; i++) dma_fence_put(fences[i]); Which means for the failing 'i' the dma_fence_put was already a double free. Possibly there were no users at that time, or the test cases were ins... | 0% Низкий | 11 дней назад |
Уязвимостей на страницу