In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/siw: Fix the sendmsg byte count in siw_tcp_sendpages
Ever since commit c2ff29e99a76 ("siw: Inline do_tcp_sendpages()"),
we have been doing this:
static int siw_tcp_sendpages(struct socket *s, struct page **page, int offset,
size_t size)
[...]
/* Calculate the number of bytes we need to push, for this page
* specifically */
size_t bytes = min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE - offset, size);
/* If we can't splice it, then copy it in, as normal */
if (!sendpage_ok(page[i]))
msg.msg_flags &= ~MSG_SPLICE_PAGES;
/* Set the bvec pointing to the page, with len $bytes */
bvec_set_page(&bvec, page[i], bytes, offset);
/* Set the iter to $size, aka the size of the whole sendpages (!!!) */
iov_iter_bvec(&msg.msg_iter, ITER_SOURCE, &bvec, 1, size);
try_page_again:
lock_sock(sk);
/* Sendmsg with $size size (!!!) */
rv = tcp_sendmsg_locked(sk, &msg, size);
This means we've been sending oversized iov_iters and tcp_sendmsg calls
for a while. This has a been a benign bug because sendpage_ok() always
returned true. With the recent slab allocator changes being slowly
introduced into next (that disallow sendpage on large kmalloc
allocations), we have recently hit out-of-bounds crashes, due to slight
differences in iov_iter behavior between the MSG_SPLICE_PAGES and
"regular" copy paths:
(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES)
skb_splice_from_iter
iov_iter_extract_pages
iov_iter_extract_bvec_pages
uses i->nr_segs to correctly stop in its tracks before OoB'ing everywhere
skb_splice_from_iter gets a "short" read
(!MSG_SPLICE_PAGES)
skb_copy_to_page_nocache copy=iov_iter_count
[...]
copy_from_iter
/* this doesn't help */
if (unlikely(iter->count < len))
len = iter->count;
iterate_bvec
... and we run off the bvecs
Fix this by properly setting the iov_iter's byte count, plus sending the
correct byte count to tcp_sendmsg_locked.
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
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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