<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 04:55:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2024-35917 — s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-35917</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the
dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[&amp;lt;0000000000000002&amp;gt;] 0x2
  [&amp;lt;00000000009d5cde&amp;gt;] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250
  [&amp;lt;000000000033145a&amp;gt;] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00
  [&amp;lt;00000000003319dc&amp;gt;] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50
  [&amp;lt;0000000000c4382c&amp;gt;] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300
  [&amp;lt;0000000000c59a40&amp;gt;] system_call+0x70/0x98&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in
bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of
the return and the target addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the
alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments&amp;#39;
left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and
bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot
alias.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
  same array object, or one past the last element of the array object
  ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the C&amp;#39;s perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects
and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the
GCC&amp;#39;s alias analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few
offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means
necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[1] https…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the
dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[&amp;lt;0000000000000002&amp;gt;] 0x2
  [&amp;lt;00000000009d5cde&amp;gt;] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250
  [&amp;lt;000000000033145a&amp;gt;] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00
  [&amp;lt;00000000003319dc&amp;gt;] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50
  [&amp;lt;0000000000c4382c&amp;gt;] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300
  [&amp;lt;0000000000c59a40&amp;gt;] system_call+0x70/0x98&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in
bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of
the return and the target addresses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the
alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments&amp;#39;
left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and
bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot
alias.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
  same array object, or one past the last element of the array object
  ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the C&amp;#39;s perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects
and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the
GCC&amp;#39;s alias analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few
offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means
necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[1] https…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-35917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
