Bug 2502420 (CVE-2026-63996) - CVE-2026-63996 kernel: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length
Summary: CVE-2026-63996 kernel: ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2026-63996
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-07-19 16:07 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-07-21 23:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-07-19 16:07:11 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ethtool: cmis: require exact CDB reply length

Malicious SFP module could respond with rpl_len longer than
what cmis_cdb_process_reply() expected, leading to OOB writes.
Malicious HW is a bit theoretical but some modules may just
be buggy and/or the reads may occasionally get corrupted,
so let's protect the kernel.

The existing check protects from short replies. We need to
protect from long ones, too. All callers that pass a non-zero
rpl_exp_len cast the reply payload to a fixed-layout struct
and read fields at fixed offsets, with no version negotiation
or short-reply handling:

  - cmis_cdb_validate_password()
  - cmis_cdb_module_features_get()
  - cmis_fw_update_fw_mng_features_get()

so let's assume that responses longer than expected do not
have to be handled gracefully here. Add a warning message
to make the debug easier in case my understanding is wrong...

Note that page_data->length (argument of kmalloc) comes from
last arg to ethtool_cmis_page_init() which is rpl_exp_len.

Note2 that AIs also like to point out overflows in args->req.payload
itself (which is a fixed-size 120 B buffer, on the stack),
but callers should be reading structs defined by the standard,
so protecting from requests for more data than max seem like
defensive programming.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.