CVE-2026-80794

CVE CVE-2026-80794EUVD EUVD-2026-71437Published 2026-09-04T15:13:07.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfc: nci: fix uninit-value in the RF discover/activated NTF handlers nci_rf_discover_ntf_packet() and nci_rf_intf_activated_ntf_packet() each parse a notification into an on-stack struct (nci_rf_discover_ntf / nci_rf_intf_activated_ntf) that is not initialised. The RF technology-specific parameters are only extracted when rf_tech_specific_params_len is non-zero, so a notification that reports a zero length leaves the rf_tech_specific_params union uninitialised - and both handlers then pass it to nci_add_new_protocol(), which reads it: - discover: nci_add_new_target() -> nci_add_new_protocol(); - activated: nci_target_auto_activated() -> nci_add_new_protocol(). nci_add_new_protocol() uses nfca_poll->nfcid1_len as both a branch condition and a memcpy() length and copies nfcid1/sens_res/sel_res into ndev->targets, which is later exposed to user space via NFC_CMD_GET_TARGET. BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in nci_add_new_protocol+0x624/0x6c0 nci_add_new_protocol+0x624/0x6c0 nci_ntf_packet+0x25b2/0x3c30 nci_rx_work+0x318/0x5d0 process_scheduled_works+0x84b/0x17a0 worker_thread+0xc10/0x11b0 kthread+0x376/0x500 Local variable ntf.i created at: nci_ntf_packet+0xbc2/0x3c30 Zero-initialise both on-stack notifications so the union reads back as zero when no technology-specific parameters are present.

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: 7.1.11; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <7086dab72b3ed95df96842801e10e935cfeb27a3; patch: 6.12.106; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <8cbe06c1e699c0a165dae5093a2550e65f914818; patch: 6.6.154; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <fe69fed3495f676578d49414a069ad7d8468e2ce; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <0d4b5cfab6891a5ca0f6aef209beebba4bd7c095; patch: 5.10.269; patch: 7.2.1; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <5bd00c0e1470d90d77a7c60242854257ddf14e00; patch: 6.18.47; patch: 7.3-rc1; patch: 0; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <7489f59d1ea2d3298aa41de7baf193e5e6e132f6; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <1007a6b429d756513abd25bd00290908f2e89a4a; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <4bda9ef8392710f21e99027467f3f4afdfb5c99a; e8c0dacd9836dc2dcb28d236c9cc3cfaa9965a20 <d6f743d3d388913135681cde051c08823730194f; patch: 6.1.185; 3.3; patch: 5.15.218

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 days

Patchlage 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.