In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: rtw88: sdio: Honor the host max_req_size in the RX path
Lukas reports skb_over_panic errors on his Banana Pi BPI-CM4 which comes
with an Amlogic A311D (G12B) SoC and a RTL8822CS SDIO wifi/Bluetooth
combo card. The error he observed is identical to what has been fixed
in commit e967229ead0e ("wifi: rtw88: sdio: Check the HISR RX_REQUEST
bit in rtw_sdio_rx_isr()") but that commit didn't fix Lukas' problem.
Lukas found that disabling or limiting RX aggregation works around the
problem for some time (but does not fully fix it). In the following
discussion a few key topics have been discussed which have an impact on
this problem:
- The Amlogic A311D (G12B) SoC has a hardware bug in the SDIO controller
which prevents DMA transfers. Instead all transfers need to go through
the controller SRAM which limits transfers to 1536 bytes
- rtw88 chips don't split incoming (RX) packets, so if a big packet is
received this is forwarded to the host in it's original form
- rtw88 chips can do RX aggregation, meaning more multiple incoming
packets can be pulled by the host from the card with one MMC/SDIO
transfer. This Depends on settings in the REG_RXDMA_AGG_PG_TH
register (BIT_RXDMA_AGG_PG_TH limits the number of packets that will
be aggregated, BIT_DMA_AGG_TO_V1 configures a timeout for aggregation
and BIT_EN_PRE_CALC makes the chip honor the limits more effectively)
Use multiple consecutive reads in rtw_sdio_read_port() and limit the
number of bytes which are copied by the host from the card in one
MMC/SDIO transfer. This allows receiving a buffer that's larger than
the hosts max_req_size (number of bytes which can be transferred in
one MMC/SDIO transfer). As a result of this the skb_over_panic error
is gone as the rtw88 driver is now able to receive more than 1536 bytes
from the card (either because the incoming packet is larger than that
or because multiple packets have been aggregated).
In case of an receive errors (-EILSEQ has been observed by Lukas) we
need to drain the remaining data from the card's buffer, otherwise the
card will return corrupt data for the next rtw_sdio_read_port() call.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it