CVE-2026-72466
Linux kernel vulnerability
- Published15 Aug 2026
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xprtrdma: Fix bcall rep leak and unbounded peek rpcrdma_is_bcall() decodes a reply's first words to decide whether the frame is a backchannel call. Two issues in that decode path let a short or malformed reply leak the receive buffer and drain the Receive queue. First, the speculative peek p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, 0); /* five p++ reads follow */ asks xdr_inline_decode() for zero bytes, which returns xdr->p without consulting xdr->end. The five subsequent __be32 reads can then walk up to 20 bytes past the wire payload into stale regbuf contents and misclassify the reply as a backchannel call. Second, after the post-peek p = xdr_inline_decode(xdr, 3 * sizeof(*p)); if (unlikely(!p)) return true; the short-header arm returns true without calling rpcrdma_bc_receive_call(). The contract with the caller is that a true return transfers ownership of rep to the backchannel path: rpcrdma_reply_handler() if (rpcrdma_is_bcall(r_xprt, rep)) return; /* bare return, skips out_post */ ... out_post: rpcrdma_post_recvs(r_xprt, credits + ...); Because rpcrdma_bc_receive_call() never ran, no one took rep, but rpcrdma_reply_handler still bare-returns past rpcrdma_rep_put() and rpcrdma_post_recvs(). The rep, with its persistently DMA-mapped receive buffer, is orphaned on rb_all_reps and freed only at transport teardown. This completion reposts nothing, so its slot is reclaimed only when a later forward-channel reply reaches out_post and rpcrdma_post_recvs() allocates a fresh rep to backfill; absent that traffic the Receive queue drains and the peer's Sends draw RNR NAKs. Fix by consulting xdr->end after the zero-length peek so the five __be32 reads cannot run unless 20 bytes of wire payload remain. A byte-precise comparison against xdr->end is required because a non-4-aligned receive rounds the stream's word count up past the true payload. Also return false from the short-header arm so the reply falls through the normal out_norqst cleanup chain (rpcrdma_rep_put() plus rpcrdma_post_recvs()).
CVSS 3.1 breakdown
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HRemediation
No fixed version is recorded in the NVD data. Check the vendor advisory for the latest guidance.
References
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/07aa506436be7634e381e1e1f6d0efa9efc81ecc
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0cee8f9c3b14bd6dee9c4310090a7f45b89b834f
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/118a16a18c59f7ad8084b2d13988839b669fca10
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7afc2f8d2fd9394724df9eaf22ce7a71029a5fba
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/88b5346284a184a6b7d019912232a571d672d3e3
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c7653d5cebc8492c77ec0415b5e9c0fb3e644bc6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d7a2870dde3bb09d51d6b9c877642996ad6b92dd
Frequently asked
Is CVE-2026-72466 being actively exploited?
CVE-2026-72466 is not in the CISA KEV catalog. Its EPSS exploit probability is 0.74%.
How severe is CVE-2026-72466?
CVE-2026-72466 has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8, rated critical. EPSS estimates a 0.74% probability of exploitation.
How do I fix CVE-2026-72466?
Apply the vendor's patch or advisory guidance, then verify no affected versions remain across your devices.
How Secuno handles this
Secuno correlates vulnerabilities like CVE-2026-72466 against the real software inventory on every managed device, every day. Rather than a static severity, each match is scored in context: exploit availability, EPSS, the asset's exposure, and business criticality decide where it lands in the queue. If an affected version is present anywhere across your portfolio, it surfaces automatically with a prioritised remediation path.
Data from the NVD, CISA KEV catalog and FIRST EPSS. CVSS 3.1 base score shown where available.