CVE-2026-64124
CVE CVE-2026-64124EUVD EUVD-2026-45809Published 2026-07-19T15:40:21.000ZLast changed 2026-08-05T12:39:30.000ZCVSS 8.8
What the advisory describes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: devmem: reject dma-buf bind with non-page-aligned size or SG length net_devmem_bind_dmabuf() trusts dmabuf->size and sg_dma_len() to be PAGE_SIZE multiples without checking: - tx_vec is sized dmabuf->size / PAGE_SIZE, and net_devmem_get_niov_at() only bounds-checks virt_addr < dmabuf->size before indexing tx_vec[virt_addr / PAGE_SIZE]. With size = N*PAGE_SIZE + r (1 <= r < PAGE_SIZE), sendmsg() at iov_base = N*PAGE_SIZE passes the bound check and reads tx_vec[N] -- one past. - owner->area.num_niovs = len / PAGE_SIZE while gen_pool_add_owner() covers the full byte len, so a non-page-multiple non-final sg desyncs num_niovs from the gen_pool region for every later sg, on both RX and TX. dma-buf does not require page-aligned sizes, so the bind path has to enforce what its own indexing assumes. Reject both with -EINVAL. The size check is TX-only (only tx_vec is sized off dmabuf->size); the SG-length check covers both directions.
Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.
Products the advisory names
These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.
- Linux — Linux patch: 6.18.35; bd61848900bff597764238f3a8ec67c815cd316e <4eb82ba543421e9e38cc14e4e82058b78850df50; 6.16; bd61848900bff597764238f3a8ec67c815cd316e <d5008e4e4ee6b739256b796702a7d1aae1b5c3b4; bd61848900bff597764238f3a8ec67c815cd316e <134c517dfa63203287b2aad6558017f42435a02e; patch: 7.1; patch: 0; patch: 7.0.11
The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.
Carried in the product catalogue
An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.
- Linux — Linux
Does this concern one of your customers?
This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.
Try it for 28 daysPatchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.