Answer in brief
CVE-2026-93228 records a Critical severity (CVSS 9.1) vulnerability in svcrdma: Reject Write/Reply chunks with segcount 0. 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.
CVSS is 9.1. 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 | >=78147ca8b4a9b6cf0e597ddd6bf17959e08376c2 <fe533ae1bed2ef2b3d54ee7ab410da1874ed3d4f || >=78147ca8b4a9b6cf0e597ddd6bf17959e08376c2 <a798714b58041e88716db3bf8fb03ae13eecd54a || >=78147ca8b4a9b6cf0e597ddd6bf17959e08376c2 <45dbdb2637b7fc5f1355b588780d2a7fb0516805 || >=78147ca8b4a9b6cf0e597ddd6bf17959e08376c2 <9808eb7656666acc7291bae9ab6b987bd16e47e0 | fe533ae1bed2ef2b3d54ee7ab410da1874ed3d4f, a798714b58041e88716db3bf8fb03ae13eecd54a, 45dbdb2637b7fc5f1355b588780d2a7fb0516805, 9808eb7656666acc7291bae9ab6b987bd16e47e0 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 5.11 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Sep 24, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Sep 25, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Sep 25, 2026
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.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.