Bug 2516666 (CVE-2026-72380) - CVE-2026-72380 kernel: xen/pvcalls: bound backend response req_id before indexing rsp[]
Summary: CVE-2026-72380 kernel: xen/pvcalls: bound backend response req_id before inde...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2026-72380
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-08-15 06:24 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-09-03 14:17 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-08-15 06:24:47 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

xen/pvcalls: bound backend response req_id before indexing rsp[]

pvcalls_front_event_handler() takes req_id directly from the
backend-supplied ring response and uses it to index the fixed-size
bedata->rsp[] array for a memcpy() and a store, with no range check. A
malicious or buggy backend can set req_id past PVCALLS_NR_RSP_PER_RING
and drive an out-of-bounds write past the bedata allocation.

req_id was also declared int while the wire field rsp->req_id is u32, so
a range check on the signed value alone is insufficient: a backend
req_id of 0xffffffff becomes -1, passes a >= PVCALLS_NR_RSP_PER_RING
test and indexes bedata->rsp[-1]. Declare req_id as u32 so a single
bound covers both ends.

A backend that sends an out-of-range req_id has violated the wire
protocol, so rather than silently dropping the response, log once and
stop trusting the backend: set bedata->disabled. The event handler then
ignores further responses, and the request paths that wait for a
response return -EIO instead of blocking forever. This mirrors the
fatal-error handling xen-netback uses (xenvif_fatal_tx_err()).

The pvcalls frontend currently trusts its backend, so this is not a
classic-Xen security issue, but it matters for hardening PV frontends
against malicious backends (confidential and disaggregated deployments).


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