<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T06:46:42.698190+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-37865</id>
    <title>CVE-2025-37865 — net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T06:46:42.699820+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported</p>
<p>Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN
from a user port fails with -ENOENT:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_lQXNP0s5-IiJzd@shell.armlinux.org.uk/</p>
<p>This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -&gt; mv88e6xxx_mst_put(),
which tries to find an MST entry in &amp;chip-&gt;msts associated with the SID,
but fails and returns -ENOENT as such.</p>
<p>But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not
surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put()
not exit early:</p>
<p>if (!sid)
		return 0;</p>
<p>And the answer seems to be simple: the sid comes from vlan.sid which
supposedly was previously populated by mv88e6xxx_vtu_get().
But some chip-&gt;info-&gt;ops-&gt;vtu_getnext() implementations do not populate
vlan.sid, for example see mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). In that case,
later in mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() we are using a garbage sid which is
just residual stack memory.</p>
<p>Testing for sid == 0 covers all cases of a non-bridge VLAN or a bridge
VLAN mapped to the default MSTI. For some chips, SID 0 is valid and
installed by mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(). A chip which does not support the
STU would implicitly only support mapping all VLANs to the default MSTI,
so although SID 0 is not valid, it would be sufficient, if we were to
zero-initialize the vlan structure, to fix the bug, due to the
coincidence that a test…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-37865"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
