FKIE_CVE-2026-45856
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-05-27 14:16 - Updated: 2026-05-27 14:48
Severity
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/uverbs: Validate wqe_size before using it in ib_uverbs_post_send
ib_uverbs_post_send() uses cmd.wqe_size from userspace without any
validation before passing it to kmalloc() and using the allocated
buffer as struct ib_uverbs_send_wr.
If a user provides a small wqe_size value (e.g., 1), kmalloc() will
succeed, but subsequent accesses to user_wr->opcode, user_wr->num_sge,
and other fields will read beyond the allocated buffer, resulting in
an out-of-bounds read from kernel heap memory. This could potentially
leak sensitive kernel information to userspace.
Additionally, providing an excessively large wqe_size can trigger a
WARNING in the memory allocation path, as reported by syzkaller.
This is inconsistent with ib_uverbs_unmarshall_recv() which properly
validates that wqe_size >= sizeof(struct ib_uverbs_recv_wr) before
proceeding.
Add the same validation for ib_uverbs_post_send() to ensure wqe_size
is at least sizeof(struct ib_uverbs_send_wr).
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nRDMA/uverbs: Validate wqe_size before using it in ib_uverbs_post_send\n\nib_uverbs_post_send() uses cmd.wqe_size from userspace without any\nvalidation before passing it to kmalloc() and using the allocated\nbuffer as struct ib_uverbs_send_wr.\n\nIf a user provides a small wqe_size value (e.g., 1), kmalloc() will\nsucceed, but subsequent accesses to user_wr-\u003eopcode, user_wr-\u003enum_sge,\nand other fields will read beyond the allocated buffer, resulting in\nan out-of-bounds read from kernel heap memory. This could potentially\nleak sensitive kernel information to userspace.\n\nAdditionally, providing an excessively large wqe_size can trigger a\nWARNING in the memory allocation path, as reported by syzkaller.\n\nThis is inconsistent with ib_uverbs_unmarshall_recv() which properly\nvalidates that wqe_size \u003e= sizeof(struct ib_uverbs_recv_wr) before\nproceeding.\n\nAdd the same validation for ib_uverbs_post_send() to ensure wqe_size\nis at least sizeof(struct ib_uverbs_send_wr)."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-45856",
"lastModified": "2026-05-27T14:48:31.480",
"metrics": {},
"published": "2026-05-27T14:16:57.670",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/01c9b152647dc70dc06a4a2eff86ebb3b3c76075"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1956f0a74ccf5dc9c3ef717f2985c3ed3400aab0"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9b5ac1c15334d46c0dbd49d64a2257b929500163"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9c15ec4cd4e7f57c6bbcb4e73e99290f150dd2a7"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bef70ff9841990658610512b4a18e4a88c9b4df6"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bf1feed1a7886af945f92890493aefd2b5c9928a"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bf4454da8b1e712714628c0a0d6e7845bb40790a"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d533425ac1f2925b4fc3e4ed9b9d72362cb23475"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…