<?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>Sat, 03 Oct 2026 23:41:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2024-38610 — drivers/virt/acrn: fix PFNMAP PTE checks in acrn_vm_ram_map()</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-38610</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;drivers/virt/acrn: fix PFNMAP PTE checks in acrn_vm_ram_map()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patch series &amp;#34;mm: follow_pte() improvements and acrn follow_pte() fixes&amp;#34;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patch #1 fixes a bunch of issues I spotted in the acrn driver.  It
compiles, that&amp;#39;s all I know.  I&amp;#39;ll appreciate some review and testing from
acrn folks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patch #2+#3 improve follow_pte(), passing a VMA instead of the MM, adding
more sanity checks, and improving the documentation.  Gave it a quick test
on x86-64 using VM_PAT that ends up using follow_pte().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This patch (of 3):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We currently miss handling various cases, resulting in a dangerous
follow_pte() (previously follow_pfn()) usage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(1) We&amp;#39;re not checking PTE write permissions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maybe we should simply always require pte_write() like we do for
pin_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE)? Hard to tell, so let&amp;#39;s check for
ACRN_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE for now.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(2) We&amp;#39;re not rejecting refcounted pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As we are not using MMU notifiers, messing with refcounted pages is
dangerous and can result in use-after-free. Let&amp;#39;s make sure to reject them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(3) We are only looking at the first PTE of a bigger range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We only lookup a single PTE, but memmap-&amp;gt;len may span a larger area.
Let&amp;#39;s loop over all involved PTEs and make sure the PFN range is
actually contiguous. Reject everything else: it couldn&amp;#39;t have worked
either way, and rather made use access PFNs we shouldn&amp;#39;t be accessing.&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;drivers/virt/acrn: fix PFNMAP PTE checks in acrn_vm_ram_map()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patch series &amp;#34;mm: follow_pte() improvements and acrn follow_pte() fixes&amp;#34;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patch #1 fixes a bunch of issues I spotted in the acrn driver.  It
compiles, that&amp;#39;s all I know.  I&amp;#39;ll appreciate some review and testing from
acrn folks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patch #2+#3 improve follow_pte(), passing a VMA instead of the MM, adding
more sanity checks, and improving the documentation.  Gave it a quick test
on x86-64 using VM_PAT that ends up using follow_pte().&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This patch (of 3):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We currently miss handling various cases, resulting in a dangerous
follow_pte() (previously follow_pfn()) usage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(1) We&amp;#39;re not checking PTE write permissions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maybe we should simply always require pte_write() like we do for
pin_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE)? Hard to tell, so let&amp;#39;s check for
ACRN_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE for now.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(2) We&amp;#39;re not rejecting refcounted pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As we are not using MMU notifiers, messing with refcounted pages is
dangerous and can result in use-after-free. Let&amp;#39;s make sure to reject them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(3) We are only looking at the first PTE of a bigger range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We only lookup a single PTE, but memmap-&amp;gt;len may span a larger area.
Let&amp;#39;s loop over all involved PTEs and make sure the PFN range is
actually contiguous. Reject everything else: it couldn&amp;#39;t have worked
either way, and rather made use access PFNs we shouldn&amp;#39;t be accessing.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2024-38610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
