We use necessary cookies to keep DataHouse.pl working and optional cookies for analytics and marketing. You can accept all, reject optional cookies, or configure your choices.

OK, I AGREE I DISAGREE CHANGE THE CONSENTS

Thanks to cookies and similar technologies (hereinafter referred to as "cookies"), we can improve the functionality of our website and display content tailored to your needs and expectations.

For more information on the use of cookies, please see our [Cookie Policy].

I agree to:

Analytical use of cookies

Marketing use of cookies

Use of necessary cookies (always active)

Your preferences regarding cookies, expressed after logging in to the website, will be assigned to your Datahouse.pl account. This ensures that it is also saved if you sign in to your account from another device or browser.

CONFIRM SELECTION CANCEL

CVE-2024-40917: linux kernel vulnerability

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.

CVE-2024-40917CVSS 5.5Linux

CVE-2024-40917: linux kernel vulnerability

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.

CVSS: 5.5 MEDIUM
EPSS: 17.84%
Known exploited: not in KEV
Product: linux kernel

What is known

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.

Sources

Back to security hub Contact DataHouse