CVE-2026-89551
CVE CVE-2026-89551EUVD EUVD-2026-76462Published 2026-09-11T19:44:25.000ZLast changed 2026-09-14T12:00:54.000ZCVSS 9.8
What the advisory describes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: SUNRPC: xdr_buf_trim: clamp buf->len to avoid underflow xdr_buf_trim() trims `len` bytes from the tail of an xdr_buf by walking the tail, pages, and head iovecs. Each per-section step uses min_t() so it never removes more bytes than that section holds, but the final accounting at the fix_len label subtracts the total bytes actually consumed from buf->len without any clamp: fix_len: buf->len -= (len - trim); When the caller has set buf->len to a value smaller than the sum of the iov_lens, (len - trim) can exceed buf->len and the unsigned subtraction wraps to near UINT_MAX. gss_krb5_unwrap_v2() reaches xdr_buf_trim() in exactly that state: buf->head[0].iov_len -= GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN + headskip; buf->len = len - (GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN + headskip); xdr_buf_trim(buf, ec + GSS_KRB5_TOK_HDR_LEN + tailskip); buf->len is a small wire-derived value while the iov_lens are at page scale, so the per-section loops legitimately consume far more bytes than buf->len records. The wrapped buf->len then propagates as the authoritative stream bound into every downstream XDR decoder. Fix by clamping the decrement so buf->len bottoms out at zero: buf->len -= min_t(unsigned int, buf->len, len - trim); On the normal path where the iov_lens sum to buf->len, (len - trim) is always <= buf->len and the result is identical to before. No callers change behavior outside the underflow case.
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: 7.3-rc1; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <85e9602650e9df07190abe817cee3b4d9bc3df17; patch: 0; patch: 5.10.270; 3.9; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <4bf59cb0ea5b0ddfbc46a1dc2fa78fc8b9986ce4; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <e6267cccd7b05cc514e57f2160aa8db85f5c2701; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <a3d77bcd974b8625d16bddf448cb3a1b5e37049c; patch: 6.1.188; patch: 6.6.157; patch: 6.18.50; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <fa16bbe987b47e771e52eeb1b4540f18d92496ac; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <ad0cce80d4af2f74674e8b635d97aa3880e83da8; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <a924ac4c78afab71bf82641afa3b62e0c4a8b55e; patch: 6.12.109; patch: 5.15.221; patch: 7.2.4; 4c190e2f913f038c9c91ee63b59cd037260ba353 <3f491306dcb673ff5e78e1044ba450c58978774e
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.