GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-JVFH-WXW8-49HV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-15 06:32 – Updated: 2026-08-15 06:32
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ASoC: SOF: topology: validate vendor array size before parsing

sof_parse_token_sets() reads array->size while iterating over topology private data. The loop condition only checks that some data remains, so a malformed topology with a truncated trailing vendor array can make the parser read the size field before a full vendor-array header is available.

Validate that the remaining private data contains a complete snd_soc_tplg_vendor_array header before reading array->size.

The declared array size check also needs to remain signed. asize is an int, but sizeof(*array) has type size_t, so comparing them directly promotes negative asize values to unsigned and lets them pass the check, as reported in the stable review thread reference below.

Cast sizeof(*array) to int when validating the declared array size. This rejects negative, zero and otherwise too-small sizes before the parser dispatches to the tuple-specific code.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-72300"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-15T06:22:02Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nASoC: SOF: topology: validate vendor array size before parsing\n\nsof_parse_token_sets() reads array-\u003esize while iterating over topology\nprivate data. The loop condition only checks that some data remains, so a\nmalformed topology with a truncated trailing vendor array can make the\nparser read the size field before a full vendor-array header is available.\n\nValidate that the remaining private data contains a complete\nsnd_soc_tplg_vendor_array header before reading array-\u003esize.\n\nThe declared array size check also needs to remain signed. asize is an int,\nbut sizeof(*array) has type size_t, so comparing them directly promotes\nnegative asize values to unsigned and lets them pass the check,\nas reported in the stable review thread reference below.\n\nCast sizeof(*array) to int when validating the declared array size. This\nrejects negative, zero and otherwise too-small sizes before the parser\ndispatches to the tuple-specific code.",
  "id": "GHSA-jvfh-wxw8-49hv",
  "modified": "2026-08-15T06:32:19Z",
  "published": "2026-08-15T06:32:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72300"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/201b60c4d15538fcc3c0c2ea9b75dd7d0f58022c"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7c6d2d2baeb1e62dc8c6951d27edc16c5ea6e3aa"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8468dd79cfb2ffbdeaf7c353f63d64941cb8ba05"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a40e250414b463e953c54cd2a829c9a9a49a78c3"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d34deef34c99bb4b3ebd2ac51058857827a20e7e"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…