In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/siw: Reject MPA FPDU length underflow before signed receive math
A malicious connected siw peer can send an iWARP FPDU whose MPA length
field (c_hdr->mpa_len, 16 bit big-endian, peer-controlled) is smaller
than the fixed DDP/RDMAP header for the announced opcode. Soft-iWARP
parses the full header in siw_get_hdr() based on iwarp_pktinfo[opcode]
.hdr_len, but never compares mpa_len against that header length.
siw_tcp_rx_data() then derives
srx->fpdu_part_rem = be16_to_cpu(mpa_len) - fpdu_part_rcvd
+ MPA_HDR_SIZE;
where fpdu_part_rcvd equals iwarp_pktinfo[opcode].hdr_len at this
point. For a tagged WRITE (hdr_len 16, MPA_HDR_SIZE 2) the smallest
on-wire mpa_len of 0 yields fpdu_part_rem = -14, and any mpa_len below
hdr_len - MPA_HDR_SIZE underflows to a negative int.
The signed value then flows into siw_proc_write()/siw_proc_rresp() as
bytes = min(srx->fpdu_part_rem, srx->skb_new);
is handed to siw_check_mem() as an int len (whose interval check
addr + len > mem->va + mem->len is satisfied for a valid base when
len is negative), and reaches siw_rx_data() -> siw_rx_kva() /
siw_rx_umem() -> skb_copy_bits() as a signed copy length. The header
copy branch in skb_copy_bits() promotes that to size_t, producing a
multi-gigabyte read.
KASAN under a KUnit harness that drives the real kernel TCP receive
path -- a loopback AF_INET socketpair, the malformed FPDU written via
kernel_sendmsg, sk_data_ready firing in softirq, tcp_read_sock
dispatching to siw_tcp_rx_data -- reports:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in skb_copy_bits+0x284/0x480
Read of size 4294967295 at addr ffff888...
Call Trace:
skb_copy_bits
siw_rx_kva
siw_rx_data
siw_check_mem
siw_proc_write
siw_tcp_rx_data
__tcp_read_sock
siw_qp_llp_data_ready
tcp_data_ready
tcp_data_queue
Add the missing invariant at the earliest point where the peer header
is fully assembled. iwarp_pktinfo[*].hdr_len - MPA_HDR_SIZE is exactly
the value the siw transmitter uses as the minimum mpa_len for each
opcode (drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_qp.c:33), so this matches the
protocol contract. Out-of-range FPDUs terminate the connection with
TERM_ERROR_LAYER_LLP / LLP_ETYPE_MPA / LLP_ECODE_FPDU_START -- which
is RFC 5044 Section 8 error code 3 ("Marker and ULPDU Length fields
do not agree on the start of an FPDU"), the correct framing-error
class for this inconsistency.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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 low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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