Поиск уязвимостей

Security update for the Linux Kernel

ALT-PU-2025-16619: package `kernel-image-rt` update to version 5.10.241-alt1.rt135

ALT-PU-2025-16606: package `kernel-image-std-def` update to version 5.10.241-alt1

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Уязвимость kernel-lt

Уязвимость kernel-lt

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns What we want is to verify there is that clone won't expose something hidden by a mount we wouldn't be able to undo. "Wouldn't be able to undo" may be a result of MNT_LOCKED on a child, but it may also come from lacking admin rights in the userns of the namespace mount belongs to. clone_private_mnt() checks the former, but not the latter. There's a number of rather confusing CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks in various userns during the mount, especially with the new mount API; they serve different purposes and in case of clone_private_mnt() they usually, but not always end up covering the missing check mentioned above.

clone_private_mnt(): make sure that caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the right userns

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID When the report ID is not used, the low level transport drivers expect the first byte to be 0. However, currently the allocated buffer not account for that extra byte, meaning that instead of having 8 guaranteed bytes for implement to be working, we only have 7.

HID: core: ensure the allocated report buffer can contain the reserved report ID