CVE-2026-46119

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

libceph: Fix slab-out-of-bounds access in auth message processing

If a (potentially corrupted) message of type CEPH_MSG_AUTH_REPLY contains a positive value in its result field, it is treated as an error code by ceph_handle_auth_reply() and returned to handle_auth_reply(). Thereafter, an attempt is made to send the preallocated message of type CEPH_MSG_AUTH, where the returned value is interpreted as the size of the front segment to send. If the result value in the message is greater than the size of the memory buffer allocated for the front segment, an out-of-bounds access occurs, and the content of the memory region beyond this buffer is sent out.

This patch fixes the issue by treating only negative values in the result field as errors. Positive values are therefore treated as success in the same way as a zero value. Additionally, a BUG_ON is added to __send_prepared_auth_request() comparing the len parameter to front_alloc_len to prevent sending the message if it exceeds the bounds of the allocation and to make it easier to catch any logic flaws leading to this.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1c439de70b1c3eb3c6bffa8245c16b9fc318f114
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2ae0afd98432536562fa8261538ae795446f0589
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/38fdf04c602d52c42c67fc1617211492753b7e8b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/408e85ee708b6aa03eeb0220ffa0915f4d407181
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8517b6c8d2c759918ba0058cb6c7e14d59643202
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b7df9fbd4869fdfe09a3f501ffd228486521e062
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c2374b92c729d0388a538b3cde7b3e3b5e55ef39