{"id":72513,"date":"2025-10-28T15:45:42","date_gmt":"2025-10-28T12:15:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/cve-2025-40078-bpf-explicitly-check-accesses-to-bpf_sock_addr\/"},"modified":"2025-10-28T15:45:42","modified_gmt":"2025-10-28T12:15:42","slug":"cve-2025-40078-bpf-explicitly-check-accesses-to-bpf_sock_addr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/cve-2025-40078-bpf-explicitly-check-accesses-to-bpf_sock_addr\/","title":{"rendered":"CVE-2025-40078 &#8211; bpf: Explicitly check accesses to bpf_sock_addr"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>CVE ID : CVE-2025-40078<\/p>\n<p>Published :  Oct. 28, 2025, 12:15 p.m. | 29\u00a0minutes ago<\/p>\n<p>Description : In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:<\/p>\n<p>bpf: Explicitly check accesses to bpf_sock_addr<\/p>\n<p>Syzkaller found a kernel warning on the following sock_addr program:<\/p>\n<p>    0: r0 = 0<br \/>\n    1: r2 = *(u32 *)(r1 +60)<br \/>\n    2: exit<\/p>\n<p>which triggers:<\/p>\n<p>    verifier bug: error during ctx access conversion (0)<\/p>\n<p>This is happening because offset 60 in bpf_sock_addr corresponds to an<br \/>\nimplicit padding of 4 bytes, right after msg_src_ip4. Access to this<br \/>\npadding isn&#8217;t rejected in sock_addr_is_valid_access and it thus later<br \/>\nfails to convert the access.<\/p>\n<p>This patch fixes it by explicitly checking the various fields of<br \/>\nbpf_sock_addr in sock_addr_is_valid_access.<\/p>\n<p>I checked the other ctx structures and is_valid_access functions and<br \/>\ndidn&#8217;t find any other similar cases. Other cases of (properly handled)<br \/>\npadding are covered in new tests in a subsequent patch.<\/p>\n<p>Severity: 0.0 | NA<\/p>\n<p>Visit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more&#8230;\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CVE ID : CVE-2025-40078 Published : Oct. 28, 2025, 12:15 p.m. | 29\u00a0minutes ago 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 &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vulnerability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afaghhosting.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}