CVE-2026-89530

svcrdma: Reject inline replies that overflow the pull-up buffer

CRITICAL
9.8
CVSS Score
Published: September 11, 2026 at 07:44 PM UTC
Updated: October 30, 2026 at 01:20 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
CRITICAL9.8
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.5%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: svcrdma: Reject inline replies that overflow the pull-up buffer An RPC-over-RDMA client can request a reply, such as an NFS READ payload, without providing a Write list or a Reply chunk to carry it. When such a reply needs more scatter/gather entries than the device's Send Queue supports, svc_rdma_pull_up_needed() selects pull-up and svc_rdma_pull_up_reply_msg() linearizes the whole reply into sctxt->sc_xprt_buf. That buffer is only sc_max_req_size bytes, while the reply on this path is bounded only by the client's request, so svc_rdma_xb_linearize() copies past the end of the buffer and corrupts adjacent slab memory. The oversized length is then stored in sc_sges[0].length and posted, so the device also reads beyond the mapped region. The SGE-exhaustion branch is the only pull-up path that can exceed the buffer: the threshold branch pulls up only replies smaller than RPCRDMA_PULLUP_THRESH, and replies that fit the device's SGE budget are sent directly without linearization. Make svc_rdma_pull_up_needed() report -E2BIG when the reply it would pull up cannot fit sc_max_req_size, and fail the request with ERR_CHUNK as RFC 8166 Section 4.5.3 directs rather than dropping the connection. The helper no longer answers a simple yes/no question: it now reports pull-up, no pull-up, or -E2BIG for a reply too large to linearize. Rename svc_rdma_pull_up_needed() to svc_rdma_check_pull_up() so its name no longer implies a boolean predicate.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

4.19.224.20.95.09b65b18f817d9ada2bf67351f24bdcce6789a0bbd564356e1919d1178568c19af410cfc1a9076663e248aa7be86e8179f20ac0931774ecd746f3f5bf
Vendor states this is fixed in 0fbe20dfe74b783d255bf389a6ea77aa25dc7860 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 1949dd1576f7a8aa161b1330c6125df9d53046d5 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 8ec60eb51fae37cd3d334ff26e4a7d6fb21ff7cf (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in fcd91b9957462d398792201c239dffaeff1cc8b2 (fixed)
Affected range stops below 4.20, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 4.21, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.0 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.109 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.50 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.160 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2.4 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3-rc1 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitAutomatableTotal impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

9.8CRITICALLinux
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusRECEIVED

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card