CVE-2025-39810

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

bnxt_en: Fix memory corruption when FW resources change during ifdown

bnxt_set_dflt_rings() assumes that it is always called before any TC has been created. So it doesnt take bp->num_tc into account and assumes that it is always 0 or 1.

In the FW resource or capability change scenario, the FW will return flags in bnxt_hwrm_if_change() that will cause the driver to reinitialize and call bnxt_cancel_reservations(). This will lead to bnxt_init_dflt_ring_mode() calling bnxt_set_dflt_rings() and bp->num_tc may be greater than 1. This will cause bp->tx_ring[] to be sized too small and cause memory corruption in bnxt_alloc_cp_rings().

Fix it by properly scaling the TX rings by bp->num_tc in the code paths mentioned above. Add 2 helper functions to determine bp->tx_nr_rings and bp->tx_nr_rings_per_tc.

Weakness

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

• Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

• Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

• D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

• Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

• Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

• Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

• Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2747328ba2714f1a7454208dbbc1dc0631990b4a
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9ab6a9950f152e094395d2e3967f889857daa185
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d00e98977ef519280b075d783653e2c492fffbb6