In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Explicitly check accesses to bpf_sock_addr
Syzkaller found a kernel warning on the following sock_addr program:
0: r0 = 0
1: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +60)
2: exit
which triggers:
verifier bug: error during ctx access conversion (0)
This is happening because offset 60 in bpf_sock_addr corresponds to an
implicit padding of 4 bytes, right after msg_src_ip4. Access to this
padding isn't rejected in sock_addr_is_valid_access and it thus later
fails to convert the access.
This patch fixes it by explicitly checking the various fields of
bpf_sock_addr in sock_addr_is_valid_access.
I checked the other ctx structures and is_valid_access functions and
didn't find any other similar cases. Other cases of (properly handled)
padding are covered in new tests in a subsequent patch.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
References
History
Wed, 29 Oct 2025 13:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
|
Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:15:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
| |
| Metrics |
threat_severity
|
cvssV3_1
|
Tue, 28 Oct 2025 12:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Explicitly check accesses to bpf_sock_addr Syzkaller found a kernel warning on the following sock_addr program: 0: r0 = 0 1: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +60) 2: exit which triggers: verifier bug: error during ctx access conversion (0) This is happening because offset 60 in bpf_sock_addr corresponds to an implicit padding of 4 bytes, right after msg_src_ip4. Access to this padding isn't rejected in sock_addr_is_valid_access and it thus later fails to convert the access. This patch fixes it by explicitly checking the various fields of bpf_sock_addr in sock_addr_is_valid_access. I checked the other ctx structures and is_valid_access functions and didn't find any other similar cases. Other cases of (properly handled) padding are covered in new tests in a subsequent patch. | |
| Title | bpf: Explicitly check accesses to bpf_sock_addr | |
| References |
|
|
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2025-10-29T13:19:59.525Z
Reserved: 2025-04-16T07:20:57.160Z
Link: CVE-2025-40078
No data.
Status : Awaiting Analysis
Published: 2025-10-28T12:15:42.360
Modified: 2025-10-30T15:05:32.197
Link: CVE-2025-40078