CVE-2026-72466

What it is

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()).

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited over the network without logging in. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.7% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.

Timeline

1. 2026-08-09 03:40 UTC ReservedThe CVE id was reserved by its CNA
2. 2026-08-15 06:22 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
3. 2026-10-16 19:17 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.7% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 9.8 CRITICAL (CVSS).
• Fix: none linked yet, which raises it.

Details

Published

2026-08-15 06:22 UTC

Last modified

2026-10-16 19:17 UTC

Exploit probability

0.7% · EPSS, next 30 days

Record status

Received

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 9.8

Attack vector

Network

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

None

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-72466.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-72466. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge