CVE-2026-31607

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

usbip: validate number_of_packets in usbip_pack_ret_submit()

When a USB/IP client receives a RET_SUBMIT response, usbip_pack_ret_submit() unconditionally overwrites urb->number_of_packets from the network PDU. This value is subsequently used as the loop bound in usbip_recv_iso() and usbip_pad_iso() to iterate over urb->iso_frame_desc[], a flexible array whose size was fixed at URB allocation time based on the original number_of_packets from the CMD_SUBMIT.

A malicious USB/IP server can set number_of_packets in the response to a value larger than what was originally submitted, causing a heap out-of-bounds write when usbip_recv_iso() writes to urb->iso_frame_desc[i] beyond the allocated region.

KASAN confirmed this with kernel 7.0.0-rc5:

BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in usbip_recv_iso+0x46a/0x640 Write of size 4 at addr ffff888106351d40 by task vhci_rx/69

The buggy address is located 0 bytes to the right of allocated 320-byte region [ffff888106351c00, ffff888106351d40)

The server side (stub_rx.c) and gadget side (vudc_rx.c) already validate number_of_packets in the CMD_SUBMIT path since commits c6688ef9f297 (usbip: fix stub_rx: harden CMD_SUBMIT path to handle malicious input) and b78d830f0049 (usbip: fix vudc_rx: harden CMD_SUBMIT path to handle malicious input). The server side validates against USBIP_MAX_ISO_PACKETS because no URB exists yet at that point. On the client side we have the original URB, so we can use the tighter bound: the response must not exceed the original number_of_packets.

This mirrors the existing validation of actual_length against transfer_buffer_length in usbip_recv_xbuff(), which checks the response value against the original allocation size.

Kelvin Mbogos series (usb: usbip: fix integer overflow in usbip_recv_iso(), v2) hardens the receive-side functions themselves; this patch complements that work by catching the bad value at its source – in usbip_pack_ret_submit() before the overwrite – and using the tighter per-URB allocation bound rather than the global USBIP_MAX_ISO_PACKETS limit.

Fix this by checking rpdu->number_of_packets against urb->number_of_packets in usbip_pack_ret_submit() before the overwrite. On violation, clamp to zero so that usbip_recv_iso() and usbip_pad_iso() safely return early.

Weakness

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

• Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

• Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

• Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

• Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

• D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

• Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:

• Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

• Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

• Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

• For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2ab833a16a825373aad2ba7d54b572b277e95b71
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/324262c38438255bf6bdbf6342ca47c0badaab76
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5e1c4ece08ccdc197177631f111845a2c68eede3
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/885c8591784da6314f9aa82fa460ac69f9f79e5f
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8d155e2d1c4102f74f82a2bf9c016164bb0f7384
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/906f16a836de13fe61f49cdce2f66f2dbd14caf4
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/973f2c250289f5bf6cc146b98aa6fdde11fe50d6
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ce744264b06b97069b3722511ab355738311fee0
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ef8ebb1c637b4cfb61a9dd2e013376774ee2033b