Bug 2502537 (CVE-2026-64046)

Summary: CVE-2026-64046 kernel: net: tls: prevent chain-after-chain in plain text SG
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Product Security <prodsec-ir-bot>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecifiedCC: rhel-process-autobot, watson-tool-maintainers
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel's network Transport Layer Security (TLS) subsystem. An issue in how scatterlist entries are chained could lead to illegal input being provided to cryptographic operations. This could potentially affect the integrity of TLS communications.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-07-19 17:04:58 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: tls: prevent chain-after-chain in plain text SG

Sashiko points out that if end = 0 (start != 0) the current
code will create a chain link to content type right after
the wrap link:

  This would create a chain where the wrap link points directly
  to another chain link. The scatterlist API sg_next iterator
  does not recursively resolve consecutive chain links.

meaning this is illegal input to crypto.

The wrapping link is unnecessary if end = 0. end is the entry after
the last one used so end = 0 means there's nothing pushed after
the wrap:

   end         start            i
    v            v              v
  [   ]...[   ][ d ][ d ][ d ][ d ][rsv for wrap]

Skip the wrapping in this case.

TLS 1.3 can use the "wrapping slot" for it's chaining if end = 0.
This avoids the chain-after-chain.

Move the wrap chaining before marking END and chaining off content
type, that feels like more logical ordering to me, but should not
matter from functional perspective.