CVE-2026-64047
CriticalCVSS 9.8Exploitation Probability (EPSS)
Low risk41th percentile - higher than 41% of all known CVEs
Summary
In the Linux kernel, a vulnerability was found in the TLS implementation due to an off-by-one error when chaining wrapped sk_msg rings using sg_chain(). The chain pointer is placed at MAX_SKB_FRAGS instead of the last entry, potentially causing incorrect cryptographic operations.
Risk Assessment
The risk involves potential compromise of data integrity in TLS transmissions, leading to encryption/decryption errors, and in extreme cases, information leakage or system crashes.
Recommendation
Immediately update the Linux kernel to a version containing the fix (commit that replaces the faulty calculation with ARRAY_SIZE). Monitor official security advisories from your Linux distribution.
Original NVD description (English source)
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: tls: fix off-by-one in sg_chain entry count for wrapped sk_msg ring When an sk_msg scatterlist ring wraps (sg.end < sg.start), tls_push_record() chains the tail portion of the ring to the head using sg_chain(). An extra entry in the sg array is reserved for this: struct sk_msg_sg { [...] /* The extra two elements: * 1) used for chaining the front and sections when the list becomes * partitioned (e.g. end < start). The crypto APIs require the * chaining; * 2) to chain tailer SG entries after the message. */ struct scatterlist data[MAX_MSG_FRAGS + 2]; The current code uses MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1 as the ring size: sg_chain(&msg_pl->sg.data[msg_pl->sg.start], MAX_SKB_FRAGS - msg_pl->sg.start + 1, msg_pl->sg.data); This places the chain pointer at sg_chain(data[start], (MAX_SKB_FRAGS - msg_start + 1) .. = &data[start] + (MAX_SKB_FRAGS - msg_start + 1) - 1 = data[start + (MAX_SKB_FRAGS - start + 1) - 1] = data[MAX_SKB_FRAGS] instead of the true last entry. This is likely due to a "race" of the commit under Fixes landing close to commit 031097d9e079 ("bpf: sk_msg, zap ingress queue on psock down") Convert to ARRAY_SIZE and drop the data[start] / - start (as suggested by Sabrina).