AlmaLinux 9.2 主机上存在安装的程序包，该程序包受到 TuxCare ALMALINUX9.2：CLSA-2026：1779375889 1公告中提及的多个漏洞的影响。

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：net: amd-xgbe: Fix skb data length underflow There will be BUG_ON() triggered in include/linux/skbuff.h leading to intermittent kernel panic, when the skb length underflow is detected. Fix this by dropping the packet if such length underflows are seen because of inconsistencies in the hardware descriptors. (CVE-2022-48743)

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：net: bcmgenet: Use stronger register read/writes to assure ordering GCC12 appears to be much smarter about its dependency tracking and is aware that the relaxed variants are just normal loads and stores and this is causing problems like: [210.074549] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 210.079223] NETDEV WATCHDOG: enabcm6e4ei0 (bcmgenet):
    transmit queue 1 timed out [ 210.086717] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at net/sched/sch_generic.c:529 dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.095044] Modules linked in: genet(E) nft_fib_inet nft_fib_ipv4 nft_fib_ipv6 nft_fib nft_reject_inet nf_reject_ipv4 nf_reject_ipv6 nft_reject nft_ct nft_chain_nat] [ 210.146561] ACPI CPPC: PCC check channel failed for ss: 0. ret=-110 [ 210.146927] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G E 5.17.0-rc7G12+ #58 [ 210.153226] CPPC Cpufreq:cppc_scale_freq_workfn: failed to read perf counters [210.161349] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi Foundation Raspberry Pi 4 Model B/Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, BIOS EDK2-DEV 02/08/2022 [ 210.161353] pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [210.161358] pc : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.161364] lr : dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.161368] sp :
    ffff8000080a3a40 [ 210.161370] x29: ffff8000080a3a40 x28: ffffcd425af87000 x27: ffff8000080a3b20 [210.205150] x26: ffffcd425aa00000 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffcd425af8ec08 [ 210.212321] x23:
    0000000000000100 x22: ffffcd425af87000 x21: ffff55b142688000 [ 210.219491] x20: 0000000000000001 x19:
    ffff55b1426884c8 x18: ffffffffffffffff [ 210.226661] x17: 64656d6974203120 x16: 0000000000000001 x15:
    6d736e617274203a [ 210.233831] x14: 2974656e65676d63 x13: ffffcd4259c300d8 x12: ffffcd425b07d5f0 [210.241001] x11: 00000000ffffffff x10: ffffcd425b07d5f0 x9 : ffffcd4258bdad9c [ 210.248171] x8 :
    00000000ffffdfff x7 : 000000000000003f x6 : 0000000000000000 [ 210.255341] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 :
    0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000001000 [ 210.262511] x2 : 0000000000001000 x1 : 0000000000000005 x0 :
    0000000000000044 [ 210.269682] Call trace: [ 210.272133] dev_watchdog+0x234/0x240 [ 210.275811] call_timer_fn+0x3c/0x15c [ 210.279489] __run_timers.part.0+0x288/0x310 [ 210.283777] run_timer_softirq+0x48/0x80 [ 210.287716] __do_softirq+0x128/0x360 [ 210.291392]
    __irq_exit_rcu+0x138/0x140 [ 210.295243] irq_exit_rcu+0x1c/0x30 [ 210.298745] el1_interrupt+0x38/0x54 [210.302334] el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24 [ 210.306445] el1h_64_irq+0x7c/0x80 [ 210.309857] arch_cpu_idle+0x18/0x2c [ 210.313445] default_idle_call+0x4c/0x140 [ 210.317470] cpuidle_idle_call+0x14c/0x1a0 [ 210.321584] do_idle+0xb0/0x100 [ 210.324737] cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x8c [210.328675] secondary_start_kernel+0xe4/0x110 [ 210.333138] __secondary_switched+0x94/0x98 The assumption when these were relaxed seems to be that device memory would be mapped non reordering, and that other constructs (spinlocks/etc) would provide the barriers to assure that packet data and in memory rings/queues were ordered with respect to device register reads/writes. This itself seems a bit sketchy, but the real problem with GCC12 is that it is moving the actual reads/writes around at will as though they were independent operations when in truth they are not, but the compiler can't know that. When looking at the assembly dumps for many of these routines its possible to see very clean, but not strictly in program order operations occurring as the compiler would be free to do if these weren't actually register reads/write operations. Its possible to suppress the timeout with a liberal bit of dma_mb()'s sprinkled around but the device still seems unable to reliably send/receive data. A better plan is to use the safer readl/writel everywhere. Since this partially reverts an older commit, which notes the use of the relaxed variants for performance reasons. I would suggest that any performance problems ---truncated--- (CVE-2022-49194)

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：ima: Fix a potential integer overflow in ima_appraise_measurement When the ima-modsig is enabled, the rc passed to evm_verifyxattr() may be negative, which may cause the integer overflow problem. (CVE-2022-49643)

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：ovl: Use buf flexible array for memcpy() destination The buf flexible array needs to be the memcpy() destination to avoid false positive run-time warning from the recent FORTIFY_SOURCE hardening: memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 93) of single field &fh->fb at fs/overlayfs/export.c:799 (size 21) (CVE-2022-49743)

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：kprobes: Skip clearing aggrprobe's post_handler in kprobe-on-ftrace case In __unregister_kprobe_top(), if the currently unregistered probe has post_handler but other child probes of the aggrprobe do not have post_handler, the post_handler of the aggrprobe is cleared. If this is a ftrace-based probe, there is a problem. In later calls to disarm_kprobe(), we will use kprobe_ftrace_ops because post_handler is NULL. But we're armed with kprobe_ipmodify_ops. This triggers a WARN in __disarm_kprobe_ftrace() and may even cause use-after-free:
    Failed to disarm kprobe-ftrace at kernel_clone+0x0/0x3c0 (error -2) WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 137 at kernel/kprobes.c:1135 __disarm_kprobe_ftrace.isra.21+0xcf/0xe0 Modules linked in: testKprobe_007(-) CPU: 5 PID: 137 Comm: rmmod Not tainted 6.1.0-rc4-dirty #18 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> __disable_kprobe+0xcd/0xe0
    __unregister_kprobe_top+0x12/0x150 ? mutex_lock+0xe/0x30 unregister_kprobes.part.23+0x31/0xa0 unregister_kprobe+0x32/0x40 __x64_sys_delete_module+0x15e/0x260 ? do_user_addr_fault+0x2cd/0x6b0 do_syscall_64+0x3a/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd [...] For the kprobe-on-ftrace case, we keep the post_handler setting to identify this aggrprobe armed with kprobe_ipmodify_ops. This way we can disarm it correctly. (CVE-2022-49779)

请注意，Nessus 尚未测试这些问题，而是只依据应用程序自我报告的版本号进行判断。

检测

AlmaLinux 9.2 [TuxCare] 安全更新：bpftool / kernel / kernel-abi-stablelists / kernel-core / 等多个漏洞（ALMALINUX9.2：CLSA-2026：1779375889）

high Nessus 插件 ID 353122

版本 1.3

检测

AlmaLinux 9.2 [TuxCare] 安全更新：bpftool / kernel / kernel-abi-stablelists / kernel-core / 等多个漏洞 （ALMALINUX9.2：CLSA-2026：1779375889）

high Nessus 插件 ID 353122

版本 1.3

AlmaLinux 9.2 [TuxCare] 安全更新：bpftool / kernel / kernel-abi-stablelists / kernel-core / 等多个漏洞（ALMALINUX9.2：CLSA-2026：1779375889）