ghsa-qqpc-5fw9-5q24
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-05-01 15:31
Modified
2025-05-01 15:31
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

netlink: Bounds-check struct nlmsgerr creation

In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE doing bounds-check on memcpy(), switch from __nlmsg_put to nlmsg_put(), and explain the bounds check for dealing with the memcpy() across a composite flexible array struct. Avoids this future run-time warning:

memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 32) of single field "&errmsg->msg" at net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2447 (size 16)

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-49766"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-05-01T15:15:59Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnetlink: Bounds-check struct nlmsgerr creation\n\nIn preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE doing bounds-check on memcpy(),\nswitch from __nlmsg_put to nlmsg_put(), and explain the bounds check\nfor dealing with the memcpy() across a composite flexible array struct.\nAvoids this future run-time warning:\n\n  memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 32) of single field \"\u0026errmsg-\u003emsg\" at net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2447 (size 16)",
  "id": "GHSA-qqpc-5fw9-5q24",
  "modified": "2025-05-01T15:31:45Z",
  "published": "2025-05-01T15:31:45Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-49766"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/710d21fdff9a98d621cd4e64167f3ef8af4e2fd1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/aff4eb16f589c3af322a2582044bca365381fcd6"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading...

Loading...

Loading...
  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.