Количество 21
Количество 21

CVE-2024-50195
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_pt...

CVE-2024-50195
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_se...

CVE-2024-50195
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_s

CVE-2024-50195
CVE-2024-50195
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: p ...
GHSA-v787-c3f2-p88r
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_pt...

BDU:2025-04361
Уязвимость компонента posix-clock ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании

ROS-20250325-01
Множественные уязвимости kernel-lt

SUSE-SU-2025:0035-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2024:4367-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:0577-2
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2025:0577-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel
ELSA-2024-12884
ELSA-2024-12884: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)
ELSA-2024-12887
ELSA-2024-12887: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT)

SUSE-SU-2024:4316-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2024:4376-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2024:4315-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2024:4314-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2024:4364-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel

SUSE-SU-2024:4387-1
Security update for the Linux Kernel
Уязвимостей на страницу
Уязвимость | CVSS | EPSS | Опубликовано | |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | CVE-2024-50195 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_pt... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 7 месяцев назад |
![]() | CVE-2024-50195 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_se... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 7 месяцев назад |
![]() | CVE-2024-50195 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_s | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 7 месяцев назад |
![]() | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 6 месяцев назад | |
CVE-2024-50195 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: p ... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 7 месяцев назад | |
GHSA-v787-c3f2-p88r In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_pt... | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 7 месяцев назад | |
![]() | BDU:2025-04361 Уязвимость компонента posix-clock ядра операционной системы Linux, позволяющая нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании | CVSS3: 5.5 | 0% Низкий | 7 месяцев назад |
![]() | ROS-20250325-01 Множественные уязвимости kernel-lt | CVSS3: 7.8 | 3 месяца назад | |
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:0035-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 5 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4367-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:0577-2 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 3 месяца назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2025:0577-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 3 месяца назад | ||
ELSA-2024-12884 ELSA-2024-12884: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT) | 6 месяцев назад | |||
ELSA-2024-12887 ELSA-2024-12887: Unbreakable Enterprise kernel security update (IMPORTANT) | 6 месяцев назад | |||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4316-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4376-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4315-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4314-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4364-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад | ||
![]() | SUSE-SU-2024:4387-1 Security update for the Linux Kernel | 6 месяцев назад |
Уязвимостей на страницу