fkie_cve-2024-40917
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2024-07-12 13:15
Modified
2025-01-17 14:15
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES On an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug the commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer being refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used. No NUMA configuration found Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] was seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of memblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This in turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES triggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to access node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data. To compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust a passed in value of MAX_NUMNODES, just like various other functions already do.
References
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22f742b8f738918f683198a18ec3c691acda14c4
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4ddb7f966f3d06fcf1ba5ee298af6714b593584b
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22f742b8f738918f683198a18ec3c691acda14c4
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version


To clipboard 

{
   cveTags: [],
   descriptions: [
      {
         lang: "en",
         value: "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nmemblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES\n\nOn an (old) x86 system with SRAT just covering space above 4Gb:\n\n    ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0xfffffffff] hotplug\n\nthe commit referenced below leads to this NUMA configuration no longer\nbeing refused by a CONFIG_NUMA=y kernel (previously\n\n    NUMA: nodes only cover 6144MB of your 8185MB e820 RAM. Not used.\n    No NUMA configuration found\n    Faking a node at [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff]\n\nwas seen in the log directly after the message quoted above), because of\nmemblock_validate_numa_coverage() checking for NUMA_NO_NODE (only). This\nin turn led to memblock_alloc_range_nid()'s warning about MAX_NUMNODES\ntriggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to\naccess node 64's (NODE_SHIFT=6) node data.\n\nTo compensate said change, make memblock_set_node() warn on and adjust\na passed in value of MAX_NUMNODES, just like various other functions\nalready do.",
      },
      {
         lang: "es",
         value: "En el kernel de Linux, se resolvió la siguiente vulnerabilidad: memblock: make memblock_set_node() también advierte sobre el uso de MAX_NUMNODES En un sistema x86 (antiguo) con SRAT que solo cubre espacio superior a 4 Gb: ACPI: SRAT: Nodo 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000 -0xfffffffff] hotplug, El commit a la que se hace referencia a continuación hace que esta configuración NUMA ya no sea rechazada por un kernel CONFIG_NUMA=y (anteriormente NUMA: los nodos solo cubren 6144 MB de su RAM e820 de 8185 MB. No se usa. No se encontró ninguna configuración NUMA Falsificar un nodo en [mem 0x0000000000000000-0x000000027fffffff] se vio en el registro directamente después del mensaje citado anteriormente), debido a que memblock_validate_numa_coverage() verifica NUMA_NO_NODE (solamente). Esto a su vez llevó a la advertencia de memblock_alloc_range_nid() sobre la activación de MAX_NUMNODES, seguida de una deref NULL en memmap_init() al intentar acceder a los datos del nodo 64 (NODE_SHIFT=6). Para compensar dicho cambio, active memblock_set_node() y ajuste un valor pasado de MAX_NUMNODES, tal como lo hacen otras funciones.",
      },
   ],
   id: "CVE-2024-40917",
   lastModified: "2025-01-17T14:15:31.457",
   metrics: {},
   published: "2024-07-12T13:15:14.797",
   references: [
      {
         source: "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22f742b8f738918f683198a18ec3c691acda14c4",
      },
      {
         source: "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4ddb7f966f3d06fcf1ba5ee298af6714b593584b",
      },
      {
         source: "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7",
      },
      {
         source: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22f742b8f738918f683198a18ec3c691acda14c4",
      },
      {
         source: "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7",
      },
   ],
   sourceIdentifier: "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
   vulnStatus: "Awaiting Analysis",
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.

Security Advisory comment format.

This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.

UUIDv4 of the comment
UUIDv4 of the Vulnerability-Lookup instance
When the comment was created originally
When the comment was last updated
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
The identifier of the vulnerability (CVE ID, GHSA-ID, PYSEC ID, etc.).



Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.