On 9/3/26 19:03, Sadineni, Harish via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
From: Harish Sadineni <[email protected]>
Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
turns out not to work correctly.
Upstream-Status: Backport
[https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
CVE: CVE-2026-19542
Reference:
[1]https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-19542
[2]https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34506
[3]https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3
Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <[email protected]>
---
.../glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb | 1 +
2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..d4b42c6ea4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+From e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Florian Weimer <[email protected]>
+Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:41:16 +0200
+Subject: [PATCH] misc: Fix out-of-bounds array write in tdelete (bug 34506)
+
+Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
+the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
+function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
+guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
+turns out not to work correctly.
+
+CVE: CVE-2025-19542
+Upstream-Status: Backport
[https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
+
+Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <[email protected]>
+Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <[email protected]>
+---
+ misc/tsearch.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
+ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/misc/tsearch.c b/misc/tsearch.c
+index 9b2eb34b25..e517dfa712 100644
+--- a/misc/tsearch.c
++++ b/misc/tsearch.c
+@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
+ #include <assert.h>
+ #include <stdalign.h>
+ #include <stddef.h>
++#include <stdint.h>
+ #include <stdlib.h>
+ #include <string.h>
+ #include <search.h>
+@@ -406,12 +407,13 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t
compar)
+ int cmp;
+ node *rootp = (node *) vrootp;
+ node root, unchained;
+- /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. It's
+- _very_ unlikely that there are paths longer than 40 nodes. The tree
+- would need to have around 250.000 nodes. */
+- int stacksize = 40;
++ /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. The
++ stack size is a conservative approximation of the maximum height
++ of a red-black tree, based on size of the address space.
++ Actual numbers are closer to 57 (32 bit) and 117 (63 bit). */
++ enum { stacksize = 2 * UINTPTR_WIDTH };
+ int sp = 0;
+- node **nodestack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
++ node *nodestack[stacksize];
+
+ if (rootp == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+@@ -424,14 +426,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t
compar)
+ root = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
+ while ((cmp = (*compar) (key, root->key)) != 0)
+ {
+- if (sp == stacksize)
+- {
+- node **newstack;
+- stacksize += 20;
+- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
+- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
+- }
+-
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = rootp;
+ p = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
+ if (cmp < 0)
+@@ -470,13 +465,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t
compar)
+ node upn;
+ for (;;)
+ {
+- if (sp == stacksize)
+- {
+- node **newstack;
+- stacksize += 20;
+- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
+- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
+- }
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = parentp;
+ parentp = up;
+ upn = DEREFNODEPTR(up);
+@@ -541,6 +530,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t
compar)
+ SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
+ /* Make sure pp is right if the case below tries to use
+ it. */
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = pp = LEFTPTR(q);
+ q = RIGHT(p);
+ }
+@@ -625,6 +615,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t
compar)
+ SETLEFT(p,RIGHT(q));
+ SETRIGHT(q,p);
+ SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = pp = RIGHTPTR(q);
+ q = LEFT(p);
+ }
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
index 9f3a3814d0..3ef2301191 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
file://0020-fix-create-thread-failed-in-unprivileged-process-BZ-.patch \
file://0021-tests-Skip-2-qemu-tests-that-can-hang-in-oe-selftest.patch \
file://0022-Propagate-ffile-prefix-map-from-CFLAGS-to-ASFLAGS.patch \
+ file://0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch \
"
B = "${WORKDIR}/build-${TARGET_SYS}"
Hi,
AS far as I know, we don't fix glibc through a patch to
Openembedded-core. Please send a patch to original glibc project's 2.43
branch (or check their bug tracker to see if this is backported
already). Once merged, we maybe be able to update the recipe to point to
the latest 2.43 release.
I would like someone to verify the above, but as I see there are no CVE
backport patches in the recipe.
Thanks!
Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#245037):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/245037
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/121072674/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
