CVE-2026-31705

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

ksmbd: fix out-of-bounds write in smb2_get_ea() EA alignment

smb2_get_ea() applies 4-byte alignment padding via memset() after writing each EA entry. The bounds check on buf_free_len is performed before the value memcpy, but the alignment memset fires unconditionally afterward with no check on remaining space.

When the EA value exactly fills the remaining buffer (buf_free_len == 0 after value subtraction), the alignment memset writes 1-3 NUL bytes past the buf_free_len boundary. In compound requests where the response buffer is shared across commands, the first command (e.g., READ) can consume most of the buffer, leaving a tight remainder for the QUERY_INFO EA response. The alignment memset then overwrites past the physical kvmalloc allocation into adjacent kernel heap memory.

Add a bounds check before the alignment memset to ensure buf_free_len can accommodate the padding bytes.

This is the same bug pattern fixed by commit beef2634f81f (ksmbd: fix potencial OOB in get_file_all_info() for compound requests) and commit fda9522ed6af (ksmbd: fix OOB write in QUERY_INFO for compound requests), both of which added bounds checks before unconditional writes in QUERY_INFO response handlers.

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/30010c952077a1c89ecdd71fc4d574c75a8f5617
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/790304c02bf9bd7b8171feda4294d6e62d32ae8f
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/922d48fe8c19f388ffa2f709f33acaae4e408de2
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/98f3de6ef4efbd899348d333f0902dc4ff14380c
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ddbbc8b2a09dd2cfed90871313e3691ae1db08a2
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ffbce350c6fd1e99116ea57383b9031717e36d3b