Empresa
¿Quiénes somos? Visión y Valores
Herramientas
Email Checker Vigía DNS SSL Checker Password Strength HTTP Headers
Alertas
Todas las alertas Vulnerabilidades Incidentes Solo críticas En CISA KEV
Editorial
Análisis técnico ¿Cuál es mi IP?
Blog
Blog 2MCI ISO 27001 Amenazas LATAM Recursos Gratuitos eBook Gratuito Newsletter Podcast / YouTube
Empresa
Servicios Contacto Suscribirse al Newsletter
Nuevo en 2MCI
Crear cuenta gratis Ver herramientas sin registro
Ya tengo cuenta
Iniciar sesión
Equipo
Portal interno 2MCI
Crítico CVE-2026-93228 Multiple Vendors

[CVE-2026-93228] In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chu…

Vulnerabilidad · Publicado 24/09/2026 · Actualizado 25/09/2026

9.1
CVSS 3.x
04 Medio7 Alto9 Crítico10
Severidad: Crítico
Resumen ejecutivo

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0

A peer can send a Write or Reply chunk whose segcount field is zero.
xdr_check_write_chunk() only rejects segcount > rc_maxpages, so zero
passes the range check, and xdr_inline_decode(stream, 0) returns the
current (non-NULL) cursor without advancing. The function returns
true a…

Descripción técnica

Descripción técnica

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0 A peer can send a Write or Reply chunk whose segcount field is zero. xdr_check_write_chunk() only rejects segcount > rc_maxpages, so zero passes the range check, and xdr_inline_decode(stream, 0) returns the current (non-NULL) cursor without advancing. The function returns true and pcl_alloc_write() then links a struct svc_rdma_chunk with ch_segcount == 0 onto rc_write_pcl or rc_reply_pcl. An earlier patch in this series made pcl_for_each_segment() safe for ch_segcount == 0, so this no longer drives the memory walk it used to. Rejecting the malformed frame at the decode boundary is still worthwhile as defense in depth: it keeps degenerate zero-segment chunks off the parsed chunk lists entirely, so any future consumer that walks ch_segments directly cannot observe one, and it makes the zero-floor easy to backport to trees where the macro change is more intrusive. RFC 8166 has no meaning for a Write/Reply chunk that describes no remote buffer, so no legitimate client is affected. xdr_check_reply_chunk() funnels Reply chunks through xdr_check_write_chunk() and inherits the same rejection. pcl_alloc_write() also links each chunk onto the parsed chunk list before filling its segment array. If a future change weakens the segcount-0 rejection, an incomplete chunk is visible to consumers during the fill loop. Reorder so that list_add_tail() follows the segment fill loop, ensuring only fully-populated chunks appear on the list.

Puntuación CVSS

Score: 9.1/10 — Severidad: CRITICAL — Estado NIST: Received

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

Fuente oficial

Publicado en NIST NVD.

¿Qué hacer?
  • Revisar el aviso oficial del fabricante y aplicar los parches o mitigaciones disponibles
  • Consultar las referencias en NIST NVD para actualizaciones de estado
  • Priorizar según el score CVSS y la exposición de los sistemas afectados
Esta alerta fue generada automáticamente a partir del NVD del NIST.