Linux/Unix 主机中安装的一个或多个程序包受到一个漏洞影响，而供应商没有提供补丁程序。

  - 已修复 Linux 内核中的下列漏洞：liveupdate: luo_file: remember retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on a LUO file. It does so to avoid multiple retrievals of the same file. Multiple retrievals cause problems because once the file is retrieved, the serialized data structures are likely freed and the file is likely in a very different state from what the code expects. The retrieve boolean in struct luo_file keeps track of this, and is passed to the finish callback so it knows what work was already done and what it has left to do. All this works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails, luo_retrieve_file() returns the error immediately, without ever storing anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. This results in an errored LIVEUPDATE_SESSION_RETRIEVE_FD ioctl to userspace, but nothing prevents it from trying this again.
    The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The file is likely in a very different state than what the retrieve logic normally expects, and it might even have freed some serialization data structures. Attempting to access them or free them again is going to break things. For example, if memfd managed to restore 8 of its 10 folios, but fails on the 9th, a subsequent retrieve attempt will try to call kho_restore_folio() on the first folio again, and that will fail with a warning since it is an invalid operation. Apart from the retry, finish() also breaks. Since on failure the retrieved bool in luo_file is never touched, the finish() call on session close will tell the file handler that retrieve was never attempted, and it will try to access or free the data structures that might not exist, much in the same way as the retry attempt. There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. Also pass this status code to finish() so it can make the right decision on the work it needs to do. This is done by changing the bool to an integer. A value of 0 means retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a negative value means it failed and the error code is the value. (CVE-2026-43489)

请注意，Nessus 依赖供应商报告的程序包是否存在进行判断。

Linux/Unix 主機上安裝了一個或多個受到弱點影響的套件，且供應商未提供可用的修補程式。

  - 已解決 Linux 核心中的下列弱點：liveupdate: luo_file: remember retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on a LUO file. It does so to avoid multiple retrievals of the same file. Multiple retrievals cause problems because once the file is retrieved, the serialized data structures are likely freed and the file is likely in a very different state from what the code expects. The retrieve boolean in struct luo_file keeps track of this, and is passed to the finish callback so it knows what work was already done and what it has left to do. All this works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails, luo_retrieve_file() returns the error immediately, without ever storing anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. This results in an errored LIVEUPDATE_SESSION_RETRIEVE_FD ioctl to userspace, but nothing prevents it from trying this again.
    The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The file is likely in a very different state than what the retrieve logic normally expects, and it might even have freed some serialization data structures. Attempting to access them or free them again is going to break things. For example, if memfd managed to restore 8 of its 10 folios, but fails on the 9th, a subsequent retrieve attempt will try to call kho_restore_folio() on the first folio again, and that will fail with a warning since it is an invalid operation. Apart from the retry, finish() also breaks. Since on failure the retrieved bool in luo_file is never touched, the finish() call on session close will tell the file handler that retrieve was never attempted, and it will try to access or free the data structures that might not exist, much in the same way as the retry attempt. There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. Also pass this status code to finish() so it can make the right decision on the work it needs to do. This is done by changing the bool to an integer. A value of 0 means retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a negative value means it failed and the error code is the value. (CVE-2026-43489)

請注意，Nessus 依賴供應商報告的套件存在。

Linux/Unix ホストには、ベンダーが提供するパッチが利用できない脆弱性の影響を受ける複数のパッケージがインストールされています。

  - Linux カーネルでは、以下の脆弱性が解決されています: liveupdate: luo_file: remember retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on a LUO file. It does so to avoid multiple retrievals of the same file. Multiple retrievals cause problems because once the file is retrieved, the serialized data structures are likely freed and the file is likely in a very different state from what the code expects. The retrieve boolean in struct luo_file keeps track of this, and is passed to the finish callback so it knows what work was already done and what it has left to do. All this works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails, luo_retrieve_file() returns the error immediately, without ever storing anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. This results in an errored LIVEUPDATE_SESSION_RETRIEVE_FD ioctl to userspace, but nothing prevents it from trying this again.
    The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The file is likely in a very different state than what the retrieve logic normally expects, and it might even have freed some serialization data structures. Attempting to access them or free them again is going to break things. For example, if memfd managed to restore 8 of its 10 folios, but fails on the 9th, a subsequent retrieve attempt will try to call kho_restore_folio() on the first folio again, and that will fail with a warning since it is an invalid operation. Apart from the retry, finish() also breaks. Since on failure the retrieved bool in luo_file is never touched, the finish() call on session close will tell the file handler that retrieve was never attempted, and it will try to access or free the data structures that might not exist, much in the same way as the retry attempt. There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. Also pass this status code to finish() so it can make the right decision on the work it needs to do. This is done by changing the bool to an integer. A value of 0 means retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a negative value means it failed and the error code is the value. (CVE-2026-43489)

Nessus は、ベンダーによって報告されたパッケージの存在に依存していることに注意してください。

The Linux/Unix host has one or more packages installed that are impacted by a vulnerability without a vendor supplied patch available.

  - In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liveupdate: luo_file: remember     retrieve() status LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on a LUO file. It does so to avoid     multiple retrievals of the same file. Multiple retrievals cause problems because once the file is     retrieved, the serialized data structures are likely freed and the file is likely in a very different     state from what the code expects. The retrieve boolean in struct luo_file keeps track of this, and is     passed to the finish callback so it knows what work was already done and what it has left to do. All this     works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails, luo_retrieve_file() returns the error immediately,     without ever storing anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. This results in an     errored LIVEUPDATE_SESSION_RETRIEVE_FD ioctl to userspace, but nothing prevents it from trying this again.
    The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The file is likely in a very different     state than what the retrieve logic normally expects, and it might even have freed some serialization data     structures. Attempting to access them or free them again is going to break things. For example, if memfd     managed to restore 8 of its 10 folios, but fails on the 9th, a subsequent retrieve attempt will try to     call kho_restore_folio() on the first folio again, and that will fail with a warning since it is an     invalid operation. Apart from the retry, finish() also breaks. Since on failure the retrieved bool in     luo_file is never touched, the finish() call on session close will tell the file handler that retrieve was     never attempted, and it will try to access or free the data structures that might not exist, much in the     same way as the retry attempt. There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error     retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. Also pass this status code to finish() so it can make     the right decision on the work it needs to do. This is done by changing the bool to an integer. A value of     0 means retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a negative value means it     failed and the error code is the value. (CVE-2026-43489)

Note that Nessus relies on the presence of the package as reported by the vendor.

ID	名稱	產品	系列	已發布	已更新	嚴重性
314729	Linux Distros 未修补的漏洞：CVE-2026-43489	Nessus	Misc.	2026/5/14	2026/10/20	medium
314729	Linux Distros 未修補的弱點：CVE-2026-43489	Nessus	Misc.	2026/5/14	2026/10/20	medium
314729	Linux Distros のパッチ未適用の脆弱性: CVE-2026-43489	Nessus	Misc.	2026/5/14	2026/10/20	medium
314729	Linux Distros Unpatched Vulnerability : CVE-2026-43489	Nessus	Misc.	2026/5/14	2026/10/20	medium

偵測

搜尋 Plugin

medium

medium

medium

medium