CVE Catalog

CVE-2026-93228

CriticalCVSS 9.1
Published: Updated: Translated: NVD NIST

Summary

A vulnerability was found in the Linux kernel's svcrdma module (NFS/RDMA server). A remote peer can send a Write or Reply chunk with a segcount field of zero, which passes validation in xdr_check_write_chunk() and causes a degenerate chunk (ch_segcount == 0) to be linked onto the rc_write_pcl or rc_reply_pcl lists. An earlier patch made pcl_for_each_segment() safe for segcount 0, but the issue remains relevant as defense in depth.

Risk Assessment

The vulnerability may lead to improper data processing by the NFS/RDMA server and potential impact on service stability. Although it does not currently cause direct memory corruption, future code changes could make it more dangerous.

Recommendation

Update the Linux kernel to a version containing the fix that rejects Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0 at the decode boundary. If updating is not possible, consider restricting NFS/RDMA service access to trusted clients.

Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

See all
Original NVD description (English source)

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.

Vulnerability data from NVD (NIST) · CISA KEV · EPSS