ghsa-pc8x-jh6x-8jfr
Vulnerability from github
Published
2024-07-12 15:31
Modified
2025-01-17 15:32
Details

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.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
   affected: [],
   aliases: [
      "CVE-2024-40917",
   ],
   database_specific: {
      cwe_ids: [],
      github_reviewed: false,
      github_reviewed_at: null,
      nvd_published_at: "2024-07-12T13:15:14Z",
      severity: null,
   },
   details: "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.",
   id: "GHSA-pc8x-jh6x-8jfr",
   modified: "2025-01-17T15:32:32Z",
   published: "2024-07-12T15:31:27Z",
   references: [
      {
         type: "ADVISORY",
         url: "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-40917",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/22f742b8f738918f683198a18ec3c691acda14c4",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4ddb7f966f3d06fcf1ba5ee298af6714b593584b",
      },
      {
         type: "WEB",
         url: "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0eec24e2e199873f43df99ec39773ad3af2bff7",
      },
   ],
   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.




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.