<?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 14:32:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-89471 — power: supply: cros_usbpd-charger: bound the EC-reported port count</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-89471</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;power: supply: cros_usbpd-charger: bound the EC-reported port count&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;cros_usbpd_charger_probe() reads two port counts from the EC and uses
one of them, num_charger_ports, as the loop bound when populating a
fixed-size array:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;struct port_data *ports[EC_USB_PD_MAX_PORTS];	/* 8 entries */
	...
	for (i = 0; i &amp;lt; charger-&amp;gt;num_charger_ports; i++)
		charger-&amp;gt;ports[charger-&amp;gt;num_registered_psy++] = port;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both num_usbpd_ports (from EC_CMD_USB_PD_PORTS) and num_charger_ports
(from EC_CMD_CHARGE_PORT_COUNT) are u8 values reported by the EC. The
only validation is a sanity check that compares the two EC-reported
values against each other:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;if (num_charger_ports &amp;lt; num_usbpd_ports ||
	    num_charger_ports &amp;gt; num_usbpd_ports + 1)
		return -EPROTO;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It never checks either count against EC_USB_PD_MAX_PORTS, the size of
the ports[] array. A malfunctioning, malicious or compromised EC that
reports num_usbpd_ports == num_charger_ports == N for any N &amp;gt; 8 (for
example both 255) passes this check, and the loop then writes N pointers
into the 8-entry ports[] array embedded in the devm_kzalloc()&amp;#39;d
charger_data, overflowing it by up to 255 - 8 = 247 entries (~1976
bytes): a slab out-of-bounds write.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reject a port count larger than the ports[] array can hold.&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;power: supply: cros_usbpd-charger: bound the EC-reported port count&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;cros_usbpd_charger_probe() reads two port counts from the EC and uses
one of them, num_charger_ports, as the loop bound when populating a
fixed-size array:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;struct port_data *ports[EC_USB_PD_MAX_PORTS];	/* 8 entries */
	...
	for (i = 0; i &amp;lt; charger-&amp;gt;num_charger_ports; i++)
		charger-&amp;gt;ports[charger-&amp;gt;num_registered_psy++] = port;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both num_usbpd_ports (from EC_CMD_USB_PD_PORTS) and num_charger_ports
(from EC_CMD_CHARGE_PORT_COUNT) are u8 values reported by the EC. The
only validation is a sanity check that compares the two EC-reported
values against each other:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;if (num_charger_ports &amp;lt; num_usbpd_ports ||
	    num_charger_ports &amp;gt; num_usbpd_ports + 1)
		return -EPROTO;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It never checks either count against EC_USB_PD_MAX_PORTS, the size of
the ports[] array. A malfunctioning, malicious or compromised EC that
reports num_usbpd_ports == num_charger_ports == N for any N &amp;gt; 8 (for
example both 255) passes this check, and the loop then writes N pointers
into the 8-entry ports[] array embedded in the devm_kzalloc()&amp;#39;d
charger_data, overflowing it by up to 255 - 8 = 247 entries (~1976
bytes): a slab out-of-bounds write.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reject a port count larger than the ports[] array can hold.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-89471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
