In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
svcrdma: Address an integer overflow
Dan Carpenter reports:
> Commit 78147ca8b4a9 ("svcrdma: Add a "parsed chunk list" data
> structure") from Jun 22, 2020 (linux-next), leads to the following
> Smatch static checker warning:
>
> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_recvfrom.c:498 xdr_check_write_chunk()
> warn: potential user controlled sizeof overflow 'segcount * 4 * 4'
>
> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_recvfrom.c
> 488 static bool xdr_check_write_chunk(struct svc_rdma_recv_ctxt *rctxt)
> 489 {
> 490 u32 segcount;
> 491 __be32 *p;
> 492
> 493 if (xdr_stream_decode_u32(&rctxt->rc_stream, &segcount))
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> 494 return false;
> 495
> 496 /* A bogus segcount causes this buffer overflow check to fail. */
> 497 p = xdr_inline_decode(&rctxt->rc_stream,
> --> 498 segcount * rpcrdma_segment_maxsz * sizeof(*p));
>
>
> segcount is an untrusted u32. On 32bit systems anything >= SIZE_MAX / 16 will
> have an integer overflow and some those values will be accepted by
> xdr_inline_decode().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it