CVE-2026-93228

criticalpriority · track · 0EPSS 0.005 · 40 %ileDEFR
grimoire priorityP2 · Scheduled
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.47% (40th) EPSS
CVSS 9.1 · critical
Is it mine?
8 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
2 sources
cert_bund · certfr

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0 A peer can send a Write or Reply chunk whose segcount field is zero. xdr_check_write_chunk() only rejects segcount > rc_maxpages, so zero passes the range check, and xdr_inline_decode(stream, 0) returns the current (non-NULL) cursor without advancing. The function returns true and pcl_alloc_write() then links a struct svc_rdma_chunk with ch_segcount == 0 onto rc_write_pcl or rc_reply_pcl. An earlier patch in this series made pcl_for_each_segment() safe for ch_segcount == 0, so this no longer drives the memory walk it used to. Rejecting the malformed frame at the decode boundary is still worthwhile as defense in depth: it keeps degenerate zero-segment chunks off the parsed chunk lists entirely, so any future consumer that walks ch_segments directly cannot observe one, and it makes the zero-floor easy to backport to trees where the macro change is more intrusive. RFC 8166 has no meaning for a Write/Reply chunk that describes no remote buffer, so no legitimate client is affected. xdr_check_reply_chunk() funnels Reply chunks through xdr_check_write_chunk() and inherits the same rejection. pcl_alloc_write() also links each chunk onto the parsed chunk list before filling its segment array. If a future change weakens the segcount-0 rejection, an incomplete chunk is visible to consumers during the fill loop. Reorder so that list_add_tail() follows the segment fill loop, ensuring only fully-populated chunks appear on the list.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

9.1
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · high–critical · 8.3–9.1

v3.19.1criticalCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:Hsecondaryexploitability 3.9 · impact 5.2
v3.18.3highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

CWE-20USLLM-inferredCWE-400USLLM-inferred
03

affected products (8)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

04

advisories (3)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

05

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2026-09-24modified 2026-10-21
06

references (5) nvd

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan