ghsa-4fqj-ghw2-3jmf
Vulnerability from github
Published
2024-05-17 15:31
Modified
2024-05-17 15:31
Details

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

pstore: ram_core: fix possible overflow in persistent_ram_init_ecc()

In persistent_ram_init_ecc(), on 64-bit arches DIV_ROUND_UP() will return 64-bit value since persistent_ram_zone::buffer_size has type size_t which is derived from the 64-bit unsigned long, while the ecc_blocks variable this value gets assigned to has (always 32-bit) int type. Even if that value fits into int type, an overflow is still possible when calculating the size_t typed ecc_total variable further below since there's no cast to any 64-bit type before multiplication. Declaring the ecc_blocks variable as size_t should fix this mess...

Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE static analysis tool.

Show details on source website


{
   affected: [],
   aliases: [
      "CVE-2023-52685",
   ],
   database_specific: {
      cwe_ids: [],
      github_reviewed: false,
      github_reviewed_at: null,
      nvd_published_at: "2024-05-17T15:15:19Z",
      severity: null,
   },
   details: "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\npstore: ram_core: fix possible overflow in persistent_ram_init_ecc()\n\nIn persistent_ram_init_ecc(), on 64-bit arches DIV_ROUND_UP() will return\n64-bit value since persistent_ram_zone::buffer_size has type size_t which\nis derived from the 64-bit *unsigned long*, while the ecc_blocks variable\nthis value gets assigned to has (always 32-bit) *int* type.  Even if that\nvalue fits into *int* type, an overflow is still possible when calculating\nthe size_t typed ecc_total variable further below since there's no cast to\nany 64-bit type before multiplication.  Declaring the ecc_blocks variable\nas *size_t* should fix this mess...\n\nFound by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE static\nanalysis tool.",
   id: "GHSA-4fqj-ghw2-3jmf",
   modified: "2024-05-17T15:31:11Z",
   published: "2024-05-17T15:31:11Z",
   references: [
      {
         type: "ADVISORY",
         url: "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52685",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3b333cded94fbe5ce30d699b316c4715151268ae",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/48dcfc42ce705b652c0619cb99846afc43029de9",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/86222a8fc16ec517de8da2604d904c9df3a08e5d",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8fb12524c86bdd542a54857d5d076b1b6778c78c",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a34946ec3de88a16cc3a87fdab50aad06255a22b",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/acd413da3e1f37582207cd6078a41d57c9011918",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d1fe1aede684bd014714dacfdc75586a9ad38657",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f9b891a7e8fcf83901f8507241e23e7420103b61",
      },
   ],
   schema_version: "1.4.0",
   severity: [],
}


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.


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.