In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: bound namelen in dlm_migrate_request_handler
Patch series "ocfs2/dlm: bound peer-controlled lengths in the o2dlm".
The o2dlm receive handlers trust u8 length and count fields from the wire
without bounding them, so a node in a DLM domain can corrupt or panic any
other node with a malformed message. Three defects:
- dlm_migrate_request_handler() passes migrate->namelen unchecked to
dlm_init_mle(), which memcpy()s it into the 32-byte mname[] of an
o2dlm_mle slab object: a heap out-of-bounds write of up to ~215
attacker-controlled bytes.
- dlm_mig_lockres_handler() passes mres->lockname_len unchecked to
dlm_init_lockres(), which memcpy()s it into the 32-byte o2dlm_lockname
slab object: a heap out-of-bounds write of up to ~223 bytes.
- the same handler trusts mres->num_locks without checking that the
message is large enough to hold that many entries, so
dlm_process_recovery_data() walks mres->ml[] past the kmalloc(data_len)
copy and trips a BUG_ON (an out-of-bounds read ending in a panic).
The other o2dlm receive handlers already reject an oversized name; the
migration and recovery handlers have omitted it since the DLM was added
(see the Fixes tags). Patch 1 bounds namelen; patch 2 validates
lockname_len, num_locks, and the payload size. Conforming recovery and
migration traffic is unaffected.
o2net authenticates peers only by the DLM domain key, so any node that has
joined the domain -- including a compromised or malicious member -- can
send these messages. There is no local trigger; the attacker must already
be a member of the cluster.
Each sink was confirmed under KASAN with an out-of-tree module mirroring
it exactly -- a kmem_cache/kmalloc of the real destination size, then the
same unclamped memcpy/loop: slab-out-of-bounds Write for the two writes,
Read for the recovery walk, and a panic. A userspace AddressSanitizer
build faults identically under -m32 and -m64. Scrubbed logs are available
on request.
I reported this privately to [email protected] and the ocfs2 maintainers
on 2026-06-20; with no response after the standard embargo period I am
posting the fix publicly. I have no embargo requirement.
This patch (of 2):
A node receiving a DLM_MIGRATE_REQUEST message trusts the peer-supplied
name length (migrate->namelen) without bounding it. dlm_init_mle() then
copies that many bytes into the fixed DLM_LOCKID_NAME_MAX-byte mname[]
array of an o2dlm_mle slab object, so a malformed message from a cluster
peer overflows the slab object by up to ~215 bytes: a heap out-of-bounds
write of attacker-controlled data, reachable by any node in the domain.
Reject an oversized name, the way dlm_master_request_handler() and the
other o2dlm receive handlers already do; the migration handler omits the
check entirely. Conforming messages are unaffected.
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.
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