ghsa-646r-2h84-3p3v
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-08-16 12:30
Modified
2025-08-16 12:30
Details

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

dmaengine: nbpfaxi: Fix memory corruption in probe()

The nbpf->chan[] array is allocated earlier in the nbpf_probe() function and it has "num_channels" elements. These three loops iterate one element farther than they should and corrupt memory.

The changes to the second loop are more involved. In this case, we're copying data from the irqbuf[] array into the nbpf->chan[] array. If the data in irqbuf[i] is the error IRQ then we skip it, so the iterators are not in sync. I added a check to ensure that we don't go beyond the end of the irqbuf[] array. I'm pretty sure this can't happen, but it seemed harmless to add a check.

On the other hand, after the loop has ended there is a check to ensure that the "chan" iterator is where we expect it to be. In the original code we went one element beyond the end of the array so the iterator wasn't in the correct place and it would always return -EINVAL. However, now it will always be in the correct place. I deleted the check since we know the result.

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-38538"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-08-16T12:15:29Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ndmaengine: nbpfaxi: Fix memory corruption in probe()\n\nThe nbpf-\u003echan[] array is allocated earlier in the nbpf_probe() function\nand it has \"num_channels\" elements.  These three loops iterate one\nelement farther than they should and corrupt memory.\n\nThe changes to the second loop are more involved.  In this case, we\u0027re\ncopying data from the irqbuf[] array into the nbpf-\u003echan[] array.  If\nthe data in irqbuf[i] is the error IRQ then we skip it, so the iterators\nare not in sync.  I added a check to ensure that we don\u0027t go beyond the\nend of the irqbuf[] array.  I\u0027m pretty sure this can\u0027t happen, but it\nseemed harmless to add a check.\n\nOn the other hand, after the loop has ended there is a check to ensure\nthat the \"chan\" iterator is where we expect it to be.  In the original\ncode we went one element beyond the end of the array so the iterator\nwasn\u0027t in the correct place and it would always return -EINVAL.  However,\nnow it will always be in the correct place.  I deleted the check since\nwe know the result.",
  "id": "GHSA-646r-2h84-3p3v",
  "modified": "2025-08-16T12:30:33Z",
  "published": "2025-08-16T12:30:33Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-38538"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/122160289adf8ebf15060f1cbf6265b55a914948"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/188c6ba1dd925849c5d94885c8bbdeb0b3dcf510"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4bb016438335ec02b01f96bf1367378c2bfe03e5"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d6bbd67ab5de37a74ac85c83c5a26664b62034dd"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f366b36c5e3ce29c9a3c8eed3d1631908e4fc8bb"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.


Loading…

Loading…