In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
svcrdma: Reject inline replies that overflow the pull-up buffer
An RPC-over-RDMA client can request a reply, such as an NFS READ
payload, without providing a Write list or a Reply chunk to carry
it. When such a reply needs more scatter/gather entries than the
device's Send Queue supports, svc_rdma_pull_up_needed() selects
pull-up and svc_rdma_pull_up_reply_msg() linearizes the whole
reply into sctxt->sc_xprt_buf. That buffer is only sc_max_req_size
bytes, while the reply on this path is bounded only by the client's
request, so svc_rdma_xb_linearize() copies past the end of the
buffer and corrupts adjacent slab memory. The oversized length is
then stored in sc_sges[0].length and posted, so the device also
reads beyond the mapped region.
The SGE-exhaustion branch is the only pull-up path that can exceed
the buffer: the threshold branch pulls up only replies smaller
than RPCRDMA_PULLUP_THRESH, and replies that fit the device's SGE
budget are sent directly without linearization. Make
svc_rdma_pull_up_needed() report -E2BIG when the reply it would
pull up cannot fit sc_max_req_size, and fail the request with
ERR_CHUNK as RFC 8166 Section 4.5.3 directs rather than dropping
the connection.
The helper no longer answers a simple yes/no question: it now
reports pull-up, no pull-up, or -E2BIG for a reply too large to
linearize. Rename svc_rdma_pull_up_needed() to
svc_rdma_check_pull_up() so its name no longer implies a boolean
predicate.
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