BlackTreeIndependent security intelligenceLinux · Linux
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Canonical’s release and source-package findings are shown separately from local repository availability.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Ubuntu release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-aws | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-azure | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-azure-nvidia | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-gcp | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-gke | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-gkeop | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-ibm | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-intel | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-lowlatency | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-nvidia | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-nvidia-lowlatency | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-nvidia-tegra | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-oem-6.11 | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-oracle | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-raspi | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-raspi-realtime | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-realtime | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-riscv | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | linux-xilinx | Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition. | Not published in this feed | Canonical record ↗Source updated 10 Sept 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch availableIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: ops: Consistently treat platform_max as control value This reverts commit 9bdd10d57a88 ("ASoC: ops: Shift tested values in snd_soc_put_volsw() by +min"), and makes some additional related updates. There are two ways the platform_max could be interpreted; the maximum register value, or the maximum value the control can be set to. The patch moved from treating the value as a control value to a register one. When the patch was applied it was technically correct as snd_soc_limit_volume() also used the register interpretation. However, even then most of the other usages treated platform_max as a control value, and snd_soc_limit_volume() has since been updated to also do so in commit fb9ad24485087 ("ASoC: ops: add correct range check for limiting volume"). That patch however, missed updating snd_soc_put_volsw() back to the control interpretation, and fixing snd_soc_info_volsw_range(). The control interpretation makes more sense as limiting is typically done from the machine driver, so it is appropriate to use the customer facing representation rather than the internal codec representation. Update all the code to consistently use this interpretation of platform_max. Finally, also add some comments to the soc_mixer_control struct to hopefully avoid further patches switching between the two approaches.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: ops: Consistently treat platform_max as control value This reverts commit 9bdd10d57a88 ("ASoC: ops: Shift tested values in snd_soc_put_volsw() by +min"), and makes some additional related updates. There are two ways the platform_max could be interpreted; the maximum register value, or the maximum value the control can be set to. The patch moved from treating the value as a control value to a register one. When the patch was applied it was technically correct as snd_soc_limit_volume() also used the register interpretation. However, even then most of the other usages treated platform_max as a control value, and snd_soc_limit_volume() has since been updated to also do so in commit fb9ad24485087 ("ASoC: ops: add correct range check for limiting volume"). That patch however, missed updating snd_soc_put_volsw() back to the control interpretation, and fixing snd_soc_info_volsw_range(). The control interpretation makes more sense as limiting is typically done from the machine driver, so it is appropriate to use the customer facing representation rather than the internal codec representation. Update all the code to consistently use this interpretation of platform_max. Finally, also add some comments to the soc_mixer_control struct to hopefully avoid further patches switching between the two approaches.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ASoC: ops: Consistently treat platform_max as control value This reverts commit 9bdd10d57a88 ("ASoC: ops: Shift tested values in snd_soc_put_volsw() by +min"), and makes some additional related updates. There are two ways the platform_max could be interpreted; the maximum register value, or the maximum value the control can be set to. The patch moved from treating the value as a control value to a register one. When the patch was applied it was technically correct as snd_soc_limit_volume() also used the register interpretation. However, even then most of the other usages treated platform_max as a control value, and snd_soc_limit_volume() has since been updated to also do so in commit fb9ad24485087 ("ASoC: ops: add correct range check for limiting volume"). That patch however, missed updating snd_soc_put_volsw() back to the control interpretation, and fixing snd_soc_info_volsw_range(). The control interpretation makes more sense as limiting is typically done from the machine driver, so it is appropriate to use the customer facing representation rather than the internal codec representation. Update all the code to consistently use this interpretation of platform_max. Finally, also add some comments to the soc_mixer_control struct to hopefully avoid further patches switching between the two approaches.
The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 9 May 2025 · Last source change 23 May 2026, 15:58 UTC · CWE not yet assigned
Missing structured fields: CWE classification. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.