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.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it