{"uuid": "a5ea4082-aa9e-4bc7-be62-79e1d9a8b199", "vulnerability_lookup_origin": "1a89b78e-f703-45f3-bb86-59eb712668bd", "author": "2a075640-a300-48a4-bb44-bc6130783b9b", "vulnerability": "CVE-2024-58085", "type": "seen", "source": "https://t.me/cvedetector/19732", "content": "{\n  \"Source\": \"CVE FEED\",\n  \"Title\": \"CVE-2024-58085 - Linux Tomoyo Overlong Line Allocation Denial of Service\", \n  \"Content\": \"CVE ID : CVE-2024-58085 \nPublished : March 6, 2025, 5:15 p.m. | 1\u00a0hour ago \nDescription : In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:  \n  \ntomoyo: don't emit warning in tomoyo_write_control()  \n  \nsyzbot is reporting too large allocation warning at tomoyo_write_control(),  \nfor one can write a very very long line without new line character. To fix  \nthis warning, I use __GFP_NOWARN rather than checking for KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE,  \nfor practically a valid line should be always shorter than 32KB where the  \n\"too small to fail\" memory-allocation rule applies.  \n  \nOne might try to write a valid line that is longer than 32KB, but such  \nrequest will likely fail with -ENOMEM. Therefore, I feel that separately  \nreturning -EINVAL when a line is longer than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE is redundant.  \nThere is no need to distinguish over-32KB and over-KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. \nSeverity: 0.0 | NA \nVisit the link for more details, such as CVSS details, affected products, timeline, and more...\",\n  \"Detection Date\": \"06 Mar 2025\",\n  \"Type\": \"Vulnerability\"\n}\n\ud83d\udd39 t.me/cvedetector \ud83d\udd39", "creation_timestamp": "2025-03-06T19:41:55.000000Z"}