<?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 04:09:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-40123 — bpf: Enforce expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-40123</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;bpf: Enforce expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yinhao et al. recently reported:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Our fuzzer tool discovered an uninitialized pointer issue in the
  bpf_prog_test_run_xdp() function within the Linux kernel&amp;#39;s BPF subsystem.
  This leads to a NULL pointer dereference when a BPF program attempts to
  deference the txq member of struct xdp_buff object.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The test initializes two programs of BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP: progA acts as the
entry point for bpf_prog_test_run_xdp() and its expected_attach_type can
neither be of be BPF_XDP_DEVMAP nor BPF_XDP_CPUMAP. progA calls into a slot
of a tailcall map it owns. progB&amp;#39;s expected_attach_type must be BPF_XDP_DEVMAP
to pass xdp_is_valid_access() validation. The program returns struct xdp_md&amp;#39;s
egress_ifindex, and the latter is only allowed to be accessed under mentioned
expected_attach_type. progB is then inserted into the tailcall which progA
calls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The underlying issue goes beyond XDP though. Another example are programs
of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR. sock_addr_is_valid_access() as well
as sock_addr_func_proto() have different logic depending on the programs&amp;#39;
expected_attach_type. Similarly, a program attached to BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME
should not be allowed doing a tailcall into a program which calls bpf_bind()
out of BPF which is only enabled for BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In short, specifying expected_attach_type allows to open up additional
f…&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;bpf: Enforce expected_attach_type for tailcall compatibility&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yinhao et al. recently reported:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Our fuzzer tool discovered an uninitialized pointer issue in the
  bpf_prog_test_run_xdp() function within the Linux kernel&amp;#39;s BPF subsystem.
  This leads to a NULL pointer dereference when a BPF program attempts to
  deference the txq member of struct xdp_buff object.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The test initializes two programs of BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP: progA acts as the
entry point for bpf_prog_test_run_xdp() and its expected_attach_type can
neither be of be BPF_XDP_DEVMAP nor BPF_XDP_CPUMAP. progA calls into a slot
of a tailcall map it owns. progB&amp;#39;s expected_attach_type must be BPF_XDP_DEVMAP
to pass xdp_is_valid_access() validation. The program returns struct xdp_md&amp;#39;s
egress_ifindex, and the latter is only allowed to be accessed under mentioned
expected_attach_type. progB is then inserted into the tailcall which progA
calls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The underlying issue goes beyond XDP though. Another example are programs
of type BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCK_ADDR. sock_addr_is_valid_access() as well
as sock_addr_func_proto() have different logic depending on the programs&amp;#39;
expected_attach_type. Similarly, a program attached to BPF_CGROUP_INET4_GETPEERNAME
should not be allowed doing a tailcall into a program which calls bpf_bind()
out of BPF which is only enabled for BPF_CGROUP_INET4_CONNECT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In short, specifying expected_attach_type allows to open up additional
f…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-40123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
