ELSA-2025-15661: kernel security update (IMPORTANT)

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: lpfc: Use memcpy() for BIOS version The strlcat() with FORTIFY support is triggering a panic because it thinks the target buffer will overflow although the correct target buffer size is passed in. Anyway, instead of memset() with 0 followed by a strlcat(), just use memcpy() and ensure that the resulting buffer is NULL terminated. BIOSVersion is only used for the lpfc_printf_log() which expects a properly terminated string.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: lpfc: Use memcpy() for BIOS version The strlcat() with FORTIFY support is triggering a panic because it thinks the target buffer will overflow although the correct target buffer size is passed in. Anyway, instead of memset() with 0 followed by a strlcat(), just use memcpy() and ensure that the resulting buffer is NULL terminated. BIOSVersion is only used for the lpfc_printf_log() which expects a properly terminated string.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: lpfc: Use memcpy() for BIOS version The strlcat() with FORTIFY support is triggering a panic because it thinks the target buffer will overflow although the correct target buffer size is passed in. Anyway, instead of memset() with 0 followed by a strlcat(), just use memcpy() and ensure that the resulting buffer is NULL terminated. BIOSVersion is only used for the lpfc_printf_log() which expects a properly terminated string.

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: lpfc: Use memcpy() for BIOS version The strlcat() with FORTIFY support is triggering a panic because it thinks the target buffer will overflow although the correct target buffer size is passed in. Anyway, instead of memset() with 0 followed by a strlcat(), just use memcpy() and ensure that the resulting buffer is NULL terminated. BIOSVersion is only used for the lpfc_printf_log() which expects a properly terminated string.

Уязвимость функции memcpy ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del() If an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and calls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent or debugger right after unlock_task_sighand(). If a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won't be able to detect timer->it.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or lock_task_sighand() will fail. Add the tsk->exit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this. This fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because exit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still makes sense, task_work_add(&tsk->posix_cputimers_work.work) will fail anyway in this case.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del() If an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and calls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent or debugger right after unlock_task_sighand(). If a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won't be able to detect timer->it.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or lock_task_sighand() will fail. Add the tsk->exit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this. This fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because exit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still makes sense, task_work_add(&tsk->posix_cputimers_work.work) will fail anyway in this case.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del() If an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and calls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent or debugger right after unlock_task_sighand(). If a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won't be able to detect timer->it.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or lock_task_sighand() will fail. Add the tsk->exit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this. This fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because exit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still makes sense, task_work_add(&tsk->posix_cputimers_work.work) will fail anyway in this case.

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

ELSA-2025-15447: kernel security update (IMPORTANT)

Moderate: kernel security update

ELSA-2025-15008: kernel security update (MODERATE)

ELSA-2025-20553: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)

ELSA-2025-15782: kernel security update (MODERATE)

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del() If an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and calls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent or debugger right after unlock_task_sighand(). If a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won't be able to detect timer->it.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or lock_task_sighand() will fail. Add the tsk->exit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this. This fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because exit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still makes sense, task_work_add(&tsk->posix_cputimers_work.work) will fail anyway in this case.

ELSA-2025-15662: kernel security update (IMPORTANT)