linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2025-21991: x86/microcode/AMD: Fix out-of-bounds on systems with CPU-less NUMA nodes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2025060430-rimless-splinter-4131@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:28:03 +0200
From: "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Siddh Raman Pant <siddh.raman.pant@...cle.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CVE-2025-21991: x86/microcode/AMD: Fix out-of-bounds on systems
 with CPU-less NUMA nodes

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 09:24:12AM +0000, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:51:58 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> > 
> > x86/microcode/AMD: Fix out-of-bounds on systems with CPU-less NUMA nodes
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > This does not have any security implications since flashing microcode is
> > a privileged operation but I believe this has reliability implications by
> > potentially corrupting memory while flashing a microcode update.
> 
> If it is explicitly specified that this does not have any security
> implication, why is this a CVE?
> 
> IMO this should be rejected.

Doesn't "causing corrupted memory when flashing a microcode update" fit
the cve.org definition of a "vulnerabilty"?

thanks,

greg k-h