Описание
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.
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's Remote Procedure Call over Remote Direct Memory Access (RPC-over-RDMA) server component (svcrdma). A remote peer can exploit this issue by transmitting a malformed Write or Reply chunk with a segment count of zero. Because the kernel fails to validate that the segment count is greater than zero, it accepts and links degenerate chunk structures onto internal processing lists. This flaw may result in unexpected memory traversal or a Denial of Service (DoS).
Затронутые пакеты
| Платформа | Пакет | Состояние | Рекомендация | Релиз |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | kernel | Out of support scope | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel-rt | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel-rt | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel-rt | Affected | ||
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4 | openshift/ose-rhel-coreos-8 | Affected | ||
| Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4 | openshift/ose-rhel-coreos-9 | Affected |
Показывать по
Дополнительная информация
Статус:
EPSS
5.5 Medium
CVSS3
Связанные уязвимости
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 ...
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
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: s ...
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. R...
EPSS
5.5 Medium
CVSS3