CVE-2026-64273
CVE CVE-2026-64273EUVD EUVD-2026-48985Published 2026-07-25T08:49:19.000Z
What the advisory describes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Input: iforce - bound the device-reported force-feedback effect index iforce_process_packet() handles a status report (packet id 0x02) by taking a force-feedback effect index straight from the device wire and using it to address the per-effect state array: i = data[1] & 0x7f; if (data[1] & 0x80) { if (!test_and_set_bit(FF_CORE_IS_PLAYED, iforce->core_effects[i].flags)) ... } else if (test_and_clear_bit(FF_CORE_IS_PLAYED, iforce->core_effects[i].flags)) { ... } The index is masked only with 0x7f, so it ranges 0..127, but core_effects[] holds only IFORCE_EFFECTS_MAX (32) entries. For an index of 32..127 the test_and_set_bit()/test_and_clear_bit() is an out-of-bounds single-bit read-modify-write past the array. core_effects[] is the second-to-last member of struct iforce, so the write lands in the trailing members and beyond the embedding kzalloc()'d iforce_serio / iforce_usb object. data[1] is unvalidated device payload on both transports (the USB interrupt endpoint and serio), and the status path is not gated on force feedback being present, so a malicious or counterfeit device can set or clear a bit at an attacker-chosen offset past the object. Reject an out-of-range index instead of indexing with it. Bound against the array dimension IFORCE_EFFECTS_MAX rather than dev->ff->max_effects so the check guarantees memory safety regardless of how many effects the device registered. A legitimate "effect started/stopped" status always carries an index below IFORCE_EFFECTS_MAX, so well-formed devices are unaffected; the neighbouring mark_core_as_ready() loop is already bounded and is left untouched.
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 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <d10b0507fa0f5b46764b178e3271f9012f2df677; patch: 7.2-rc1; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <70019779325f2bb5f5a4098e91e79c655f50fcef; patch: 6.6.145; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <b1b79e89bc33e4c682d3df7ae2aadc62b5a0c310; patch: 5.10.261; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <a40250f97c312e000e3616c9074022311a0efbc3; patch: 6.18.39; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <e5fa31f0550b55d80045669ae9080dd5b88abffa; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <0e9943d2e4c63496b6ca84bc66fd3c71d40558e2; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <6c0f2901c9d325d4a0574c4237fd507810d225ff; patch: 0; patch: 5.15.212; 2.6.12; patch: 7.1.4; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <c21295616a8a52b9a5f18cd4ca8c73030eda3d4f; patch: 6.1.178; patch: 6.12.96
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.