GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-PC8X-JH6X-8JFR

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-12 15:31 – Updated: 2025-10-03 15:31
VLAI
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

{
  "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": "MODERATE"
  },
  "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()\u0027s warning about MAX_NUMNODES\ntriggering, followed by a NULL deref in memmap_init() when trying to\naccess node 64\u0027s (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": "2025-10-03T15:31:13Z",
  "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": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.


Loading…