In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xprtrdma: Fix bcall rep leak and unbounded peek
rpcrdma_is_bcall() decodes a reply's first words to decide whether
the frame is a backchannel call. Two issues in that decode path
let a short or malformed reply leak the receive buffer and drain
the Receive queue.
First, the speculative peek
p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, 0);
/* five p++ reads follow */
asks xdr_inline_decode() for zero bytes, which returns xdr->p
without consulting xdr->end. The five subsequent __be32 reads can
then walk up to 20 bytes past the wire payload into stale regbuf
contents and misclassify the reply as a backchannel call.
Second, after the post-peek
p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, 3 * sizeof(*p));
if (unlikely(!p))
return true;
the short-header arm returns true without calling
rpcrdma_bc_receive_call(). The contract with the caller is that a
true return transfers ownership of rep to the backchannel path:
rpcrdma_reply_handler()
if (rpcrdma_is_bcall(r_xprt, rep))
return; /* bare return, skips out_post */
...
out_post:
rpcrdma_post_recvs(r_xprt, credits + ...);
Because rpcrdma_bc_receive_call() never ran, no one took rep, but
rpcrdma_reply_handler still bare-returns past rpcrdma_rep_put()
and rpcrdma_post_recvs(). The rep, with its persistently
DMA-mapped receive buffer, is orphaned on rb_all_reps and freed
only at transport teardown. This completion reposts nothing, so
its slot is reclaimed only when a later forward-channel reply
reaches out_post and rpcrdma_post_recvs() allocates a fresh rep to
backfill; absent that traffic the Receive queue drains and the
peer's Sends draw RNR NAKs.
Fix by consulting xdr->end after the zero-length peek so the five
__be32 reads cannot run unless 20 bytes of wire payload remain. A
byte-precise comparison against xdr->end is required because a
non-4-aligned receive rounds the stream's word count up past the
true payload. Also return false from the short-header arm so the
reply falls through the normal out_norqst cleanup chain
(rpcrdma_rep_put() plus rpcrdma_post_recvs()).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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