In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
svcrdma: Fix pcl_for_each_segment for empty chunks
When a parsed chunk list contains a chunk whose ch_segcount is zero,
pcl_for_each_segment computes its inclusive upper bound as
&chunk->ch_segments[ch_segcount - 1]. ch_segcount is u32, so the
subtraction wraps to 0xFFFFFFFF and the bound lands far past the
ch_segments flex array. The loop body then walks unrelated memory at
sizeof(struct svc_rdma_segment) stride until it faults.
A zero-segcount chunk is reachable from the wire:
xdr_check_write_chunk() only rejects segcount values greater than
rc_maxpages, and pcl_alloc_write() links a freshly allocated chunk
onto rc_write_pcl/rc_reply_pcl before its segment-fill loop runs,
so a Write or Reply chunk advertising zero segments leaves
ch_segcount == 0 on the list. When the transport has negotiated
Send-With-Invalidate, svc_rdma_get_inv_rkey() iterates all four
PCLs with pcl_for_each_segment and dereferences segment->rs_handle
on each iteration, turning the underflow into an out-of-bounds read
and a general protection fault.
xdr_check_write_list / xdr_check_reply_chunk
pcl_alloc_write()
chunk = pcl_alloc_chunk(...) /* ch_segcount = 0 */
list_add_tail(&chunk->ch_list, &pcl->cl_chunks)
/* fill loop iterates zero times for wire segcount 0 */
svc_rdma_get_inv_rkey()
pcl_for_each_chunk(rc_write_pcl)
pcl_for_each_segment(segment, chunk)
pos <= &ch_segments[0u - 1u] /* 0xFFFFFFFF */
segment->rs_handle /* OOB read -> GPF */
Fix by switching the macro to a half-open upper bound that uses
ch_segcount directly. For ch_segcount == 0 the loop start equals the
loop end and the body is skipped; for ch_segcount > 0 the iteration
range is unchanged. All six existing call sites in
net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_recvfrom.c and
net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_rw.c remain correct under the new bound,
so no caller changes are needed.
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