In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: ebtables: zero chainstack array sashiko reports: looking at ebtables table translation, could a sparse cpu_possible_mask lead to an uninitialized pointer free? If cpu_possible_mask is sparse (for example, CPU 0 and CPU 2 are possible, but CPU 1 is not), the allocation loop skips CPU 1. If vmalloc_node() fails at CPU 2, the cleanup loop will blindly decrement and call vfree() on newinfo->chainstack[1]. Not a real-world bug, such allocation isn't expected to fail in the first place.

A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's netfilter ebtables component. This vulnerability involves an uninitialized pointer free that can occur when the system's CPU mask is sparse and a memory allocation fails. Under these specific and unlikely conditions, the kernel might attempt to free an uninitialized memory pointer, which could lead to system instability or a denial of service (DoS).

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: ebtables: zero chainstack array sashiko reports: looking at ebtables table translation, could a sparse cpu_possible_mask lead to an uninitialized pointer free? If cpu_possible_mask is sparse (for example, CPU 0 and CPU 2 are possible, but CPU 1 is not), the allocation loop skips CPU 1. If vmalloc_node() fails at CPU 2, the cleanup loop will blindly decrement and call vfree() on newinfo->chainstack[1]. Not a real-world bug, such allocation isn't expected to fail in the first place.

netfilter: ebtables: zero chainstack array

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: ebtables: zero chainstack array sashiko reports: looking at ebtables table translation, could a sparse cpu_possible_mask lead to an uninitialized pointer free? If cpu_possible_mask is sparse (for example, CPU 0 and CPU 2 are possible, but CPU 1 is not), the allocation loop skips CPU 1. If vmalloc_node() fails at CPU 2, the cleanup loop will blindly decrement and call vfree() on newinfo->chainstack[1]. Not a real-world bug, such allocation isn't expected to fail in the first place.