In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock: Do not allow binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY It is possible for a vsock to autobind to VMADDR_PORT_ANY. This can cause a use-after-free when a connection is made to the bound socket. The socket returned by accept() also has port VMADDR_PORT_ANY but is not on the list of unbound sockets. Binding it will result in an extra refcount decrement similar to the one fixed in fcdd2242c023 (vsock: Keep the binding until socket destruction). Modify the check in __vsock_bind_connectible() to also prevent binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock: Do not allow binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY It is possible for a vsock to autobind to VMADDR_PORT_ANY. This can cause a use-after-free when a connection is made to the bound socket. The socket returned by accept() also has port VMADDR_PORT_ANY but is not on the list of unbound sockets. Binding it will result in an extra refcount decrement similar to the one fixed in fcdd2242c023 (vsock: Keep the binding until socket destruction). Modify the check in __vsock_bind_connectible() to also prevent binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock: Do not allow binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY It is possible for a vsock to autobind to VMADDR_PORT_ANY. This can cause a use-after-free when a connection is made to the bound socket. The socket returned by accept() also has port VMADDR_PORT_ANY but is not on the list of unbound sockets. Binding it will result in an extra refcount decrement similar to the one fixed in fcdd2242c023 (vsock: Keep the binding until socket destruction). Modify the check in __vsock_bind_connectible() to also prevent binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY.

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

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.

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

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: vsock: Do not allow binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY It is possible for a vsock to autobind to VMADDR_PORT_ANY. This can cause a use-after-free when a connection is made to the bound socket. The socket returned by accept() also has port VMADDR_PORT_ANY but is not on the list of unbound sockets. Binding it will result in an extra refcount decrement similar to the one fixed in fcdd2242c023 (vsock: Keep the binding until socket destruction). Modify the check in __vsock_bind_connectible() to also prevent binding to VMADDR_PORT_ANY.

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

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel