Patchlage

CVE-2026-89532

CVE CVE-2026-89532EUVD EUVD-2026-76438Published 2026-09-11T19:44:11.000ZLast changed 2026-09-14T12:00:42.000ZCVSS 9.1

What the advisory describes

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.

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.

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.

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.