CVE-2026-89665
CVE CVE-2026-89665EUVD EUVD-2026-76577Published 2026-09-11T19:45:52.000ZLast changed 2026-09-14T12:01:54.000ZCVSS 8.2
What the advisory describes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: reject out-of-range useconds in NFSv2 SETATTR/CREATE The NFSv2 sattr decoder converts the wire useconds to nanoseconds in svcxdr_decode_sattr(): iap->ia_atime.tv_nsec = tmp2 * NSEC_PER_USEC; tmp2 is a u32 and NSEC_PER_USEC is 1000, so the product is computed in unsigned long. On ILP32 that is 32 bits, and an out-of-range useconds value such as 4294968 wraps to tv_nsec == 704. The corruption therefore happens during decode, before any proc function can inspect the value, and a later range check on tv_nsec would see an in-range result and accept it. Rejecting in the decoder yields an RPC GARBAGE_ARGS reply. NFSv2 defines no NFSERR_INVAL, so there is no NFS-level status to return for a malformed time argument, and the check cannot move to the proc function the way the v3/v4 nsec range checks do. Guard the raw useconds before the multiplication and reject values greater than 1000000. useconds == 1000000 is kept: it is the Sun convention for "set to the current server time", and the in-tree Linux NFSv2 client emits it in both the atime and the mtime field for a plain touch / utimes(file, NULL) (see encode_sattr() and xdr_encode_current_server_time() in fs/nfs/nfs2xdr.c). Rejecting 1000000 would turn that common operation into a hard decode failure for both SETATTR and CREATE. 1000000 * NSEC_PER_USEC is 10^9, which does not wrap on ILP32, so the Sun convention value passes through safely. Only genuinely out-of-range values (> 1000000) are rejected. The atime and mtime guards are therefore symmetric. The decoder only applied the Sun convention in the mtime block, which clears ATTR_ATIME_SET|ATTR_MTIME_SET when mtime useconds == 1000000. If a client puts 1000000 in the atime field but not in the mtime field, the atime block stored an out-of-range tv_nsec (10^9) and left ATTR_ATIME_SET set, so the bogus value reached the filesystem. Apply the convention in the atime block as well, clearing ATTR_ATIME_SET so the server uses its current time and ignores the value. Only ATTR_ATIME_SET is cleared there. The mtime block keeps its existing behavior, where 1000000 means "set both atime and mtime to now". [ cel: various tweaks, addenda, and clean-ups ]
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: 6.12.109; patch: 6.1.188; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <ad02d095439f89cbd6629420c7e3ba476457b83b; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <26709c8ffe73772eb69e68d553ac71d91228dccc; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <1195483965a5f63d2dde18054ec7e50a23b9071c; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <09a79d9ab35a39603c834e8f6333603292f9c816; patch: 5.15.221; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <a937dd1aa2d92291fe0a1860d17e90d8f206cd22; 2.6.12; patch: 5.10.270; patch: 6.18.50; patch: 7.3-rc1; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <5296a2442d12d45d6eea7b4d3ec3ffecc1821cac; patch: 0; patch: 6.6.157; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <cdc3299f7072777b09c9582a3b8b65bb163ddcf3; patch: 7.2.4; 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 <1db456ffc22e045f49f7b9e62415a26b3f33f200
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.