-
CVE-2026-43246
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
media: i2c/tw9906: Fix potential memory leak in tw9906_probe()
In one of the error paths in tw9906_probe(), the memory allocated in
v4l2_ctrl_handler_init() and v4l2_ctrl_new_std() is not freed. Fix that
by calling v4l2_ctrl_handler_free() on the handler in that error path.
-
CVE-2026-43246
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
media: i2c/tw9906: Fix potential memory leak in tw9906_probe()
In one of the error paths in tw9906_probe(), the memory allocated in
v4l2_ctrl_handler_init() and v4l2_ctrl_new_std() is not freed. Fix that
by calling v4l2_ctrl_handler_free() on the handler in that error path.
-
CVE-2026-43246
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
media: i2c/tw9906: Fix potential memory leak in tw9906_probe()
In one of the error paths in tw9906_probe(), the memory allocated in
v4l2_ctrl_handler_init() and v4l2_ctrl_new_std() is not freed. Fix that
by calling v4l2_ctrl_handler_free() on the handler in that error path.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
-
CVE-2026-43245
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: -d_compare() must not block
... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while
we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash()
almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks
deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now.
Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing
in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and
be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of
the users actually want PATH_MAX.
