CVE-20XX-?
agent?

CVE-2026-90042

9.8 CRITICAL 0.5% exploit odds No fix listed Other OS & kernel

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: properly decrypt filenames in vmalloc() buffers The fscrypt subsystem uses the scatterlist crypto API, inheriting its requirement that any buffers are in the linear mapping region. However, the messenger client uses kvmalloc() to create buffers for messages, which will occasionally place those buffers in the vmalloc() region when physical memory fragmentation doesn't permit a large enough kmalloc(). The various callers of ceph_fname_to_usr() directly pass (slices of) raw messages from the MDS without considering that the messages may be in vmalloc() buffers, resulting in oopses especially on non-x86 platforms (see 'Closes:' for more details and a reproducer). Make ceph_fname_to_usr() explicitly tolerant of vmalloc()-allocated fname->ctext, fname->name, and/or oname->name buffers, using `tname` (which, when non-null, must be a linear address; when null, is briefly allocated as necessary) as a bounce buffer to avoid passing any inappropriate addresses to fscrypt_fname_disk_to_usr(). Additionally change parse_reply_info_readdir() -- the only function to supply its own `tname` -- to follow the new "tname must never come from vmalloc()" rule by passing NULL when the message is not in the linear region. Though this causes a per-dentry kmalloc()+kfree(), this overhead exists only when processing the minority of messages that spill into vmalloc(). My (crude) testing puts this at only about 1 in 8,000 readdir messages. Still, if the overhead proves unreasonable in the future, it is easy enough to mitigate: a future change could allocate a bounce buffer in parse_reply_info_readdir() and use that as `tname` instead.

At a glance

Exploitability
Can be exploited over the network without logging in. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.
Exploit odds
0.5% 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. ReservedThe CVE id was reserved by its CNA
  2. PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
  3. Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

Details

Published
Last modified
Exploit probability
0.5% · 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
Raw vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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-2026-90042.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-90042. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

· More options · Status badge

Meme: I wake up, CVE-2026-90042
Download Square Reddit

References

NVD record · CVE.org record