Answer in brief
CVE-2026-63996 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <2f818cc98fd2c63a08239cb48995f6c3bfe9d9b3 || >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <4d42fb88ec61f2e98c33a9e3a2de371d5edbc6b1 || >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <eb5dcd740cd7fa27bc2caeff2d28ef28e93ff4d3 || >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <6c3f999a9d1338c6c89a9ff4549eafe72bc2e7b1 | 2f818cc98fd2c63a08239cb48995f6c3bfe9d9b3, 4d42fb88ec61f2e98c33a9e3a2de371d5edbc6b1, eb5dcd740cd7fa27bc2caeff2d28ef28e93ff4d3, 6c3f999a9d1338c6c89a9ff4549eafe72bc2e7b1 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 6.11 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Jul 19, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes. Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted, so let's protect the kernel. The existing check protects from short replies. We need to protect from long ones, too. All callers that pass a non-zero rpl_exp_len cast the reply payload to a fixed-layout struct and read fields at fixed offsets, with no version negotiation or short-reply handling: - cmis_cdb_validate_password() - cmis_cdb_module_features_get() - cmis_fw_update_fw_mng_features_get() so let's assume that responses longer than expected do not have to be handled gracefully here. Add a warning message to make the debug easier in case my understanding is wrong... Note that page_data->length (argument of kmalloc) comes from last arg to ethtool_cmis_page_init() which is rpl_exp_len. Note2 that AIs also like to point out overflows in args->req.payload itself (which is a fixed-size 120 B buffer, on the stack), but callers should be reading structs defined by the standard, so protecting from requests for more data than max seem like defensive programming.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.
Answer in brief
CVE-2026-63996 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <2f818cc98fd2c63a08239cb48995f6c3bfe9d9b3 || >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <4d42fb88ec61f2e98c33a9e3a2de371d5edbc6b1 || >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <eb5dcd740cd7fa27bc2caeff2d28ef28e93ff4d3 || >=a39c84d796254e6b1662ca0c46dbc313379e9291 <6c3f999a9d1338c6c89a9ff4549eafe72bc2e7b1 | 2f818cc98fd2c63a08239cb48995f6c3bfe9d9b3, 4d42fb88ec61f2e98c33a9e3a2de371d5edbc6b1, eb5dcd740cd7fa27bc2caeff2d28ef28e93ff4d3, 6c3f999a9d1338c6c89a9ff4549eafe72bc2e7b1 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 6.11 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Jul 19, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes. Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted, so let's protect the kernel. The existing check protects from short replies. We need to protect from long ones, too. All callers that pass a non-zero rpl_exp_len cast the reply payload to a fixed-layout struct and read fields at fixed offsets, with no version negotiation or short-reply handling: - cmis_cdb_validate_password() - cmis_cdb_module_features_get() - cmis_fw_update_fw_mng_features_get() so let's assume that responses longer than expected do not have to be handled gracefully here. Add a warning message to make the debug easier in case my understanding is wrong... Note that page_data->length (argument of kmalloc) comes from last arg to ethtool_cmis_page_init() which is rpl_exp_len. Note2 that AIs also like to point out overflows in args->req.payload itself (which is a fixed-size 120 B buffer, on the stack), but callers should be reading structs defined by the standard, so protecting from requests for more data than max seem like defensive programming.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.