Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0

A peer can send a Write or Reply chunk whose segcount field is zero.
xdr_check_write_chunk() only rejects segcount > rc_maxpages, so zero
passes the range check, and xdr_inline_decode(stream, 0) returns the
current (non-NULL) cursor without advancing. The function returns
true and pcl_alloc_write() then links a struct svc_rdma_chunk with
ch_segcount == 0 onto rc_write_pcl or rc_reply_pcl.

An earlier patch in this series made pcl_for_each_segment() safe for
ch_segcount == 0, so this no longer drives the memory walk it used
to. Rejecting the malformed frame at the decode boundary is still
worthwhile as defense in depth: it keeps degenerate zero-segment
chunks off the parsed chunk lists entirely, so any future consumer
that walks ch_segments directly cannot observe one, and it makes the
zero-floor easy to backport to trees where the macro change is more
intrusive. RFC 8166 has no meaning for a Write/Reply chunk that
describes no remote buffer, so no legitimate client is affected.

xdr_check_reply_chunk() funnels Reply chunks through
xdr_check_write_chunk() and inherits the same rejection.

pcl_alloc_write() also links each chunk onto the parsed chunk list
before filling its segment array. If a future change weakens the
segcount-0 rejection, an incomplete chunk is visible to consumers
during the fill loop. Reorder so that list_add_tail() follows the
segment fill loop, ensuring only fully-populated chunks appear on
the list.
Published: 2026-09-24
Score: n/a
EPSS: n/a
KEV: No
Impact: n/a
Action: n/a
AI Analysis

No analysis available yet.

Remediation

No remediation available yet.

Tracking

Sign in to view the affected projects.

Advisories

No advisories yet.

History

Thu, 24 Sep 2026 15:30:00 +0000

Type Values Removed Values Added
Description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0 A peer can send a Write or Reply chunk whose segcount field is zero. xdr_check_write_chunk() only rejects segcount > rc_maxpages, so zero passes the range check, and xdr_inline_decode(stream, 0) returns the current (non-NULL) cursor without advancing. The function returns true and pcl_alloc_write() then links a struct svc_rdma_chunk with ch_segcount == 0 onto rc_write_pcl or rc_reply_pcl. An earlier patch in this series made pcl_for_each_segment() safe for ch_segcount == 0, so this no longer drives the memory walk it used to. Rejecting the malformed frame at the decode boundary is still worthwhile as defense in depth: it keeps degenerate zero-segment chunks off the parsed chunk lists entirely, so any future consumer that walks ch_segments directly cannot observe one, and it makes the zero-floor easy to backport to trees where the macro change is more intrusive. RFC 8166 has no meaning for a Write/Reply chunk that describes no remote buffer, so no legitimate client is affected. xdr_check_reply_chunk() funnels Reply chunks through xdr_check_write_chunk() and inherits the same rejection. pcl_alloc_write() also links each chunk onto the parsed chunk list before filling its segment array. If a future change weakens the segcount-0 rejection, an incomplete chunk is visible to consumers during the fill loop. Reorder so that list_add_tail() follows the segment fill loop, ensuring only fully-populated chunks appear on the list.
Title svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0
First Time appeared Linux
Linux linux Kernel
CPEs cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
Vendors & Products Linux
Linux linux Kernel
References

Subscriptions

Linux Linux Kernel
cve-icon MITRE

Status: PUBLISHED

Assigner: Linux

Published:

Updated: 2026-09-24T15:29:10.087Z

Reserved: 2026-09-17T16:02:15.094Z

Link: CVE-2026-93228

cve-icon Vulnrichment

No data.

cve-icon NVD

Status : Received

Published: 2026-09-24T16:17:18.253

Modified: 2026-09-24T16:17:18.253

Link: CVE-2026-93228

cve-icon Redhat

No data.

cve-icon OpenCVE Enrichment

No data.

Weaknesses

No weakness.