In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: serial: protect uart_port_dtr_rts() in uart_shutdown() too Commit af224ca2df29 (serial: core: Prevent unsafe uart port access, part 3) added few uport == NULL checks. It added one to uart_shutdown(), so the commit assumes, uport can be NULL in there. But right after that protection, there is an unprotected "uart_port_dtr_rts(uport, false);" call. That is invoked only if HUPCL is set, so I assume that is the reason why we do not see lots of these reports. Or it cannot be NULL at this point at all for some reason :P. Until the above is investigated, stay on the safe side and move this dereference to the if too. I got this inconsistency from Coverity under CID 1585130. Thanks.

Уязвимость компонента serial ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

Множественные уязвимости 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

Security update for the Linux Kernel

ELSA-2025-6966: kernel security update (MODERATE)

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel