CVE-2026-46130

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

dm-verity-fec: fix reading parity bytes split across blocks (take 3)

fec_decode_bufs() assumes that the parity bytes of the first RS codeword it decodes are never split across parity blocks.

This assumption is false. Consider v->fec->block_size == 4096 && v->fec->roots == 17 && fio->nbufs == 1, for example. In that case, each call to fec_decode_bufs() consumes v->fec->roots * (fio->nbufs « DM_VERITY_FEC_BUF_RS_BITS) = 272 parity bytes.

Considering that the parity data for each message block starts on a block boundary, the byte alignment in the parity data will iterate through 272*i mod 4096 until the 3 parity blocks have been consumed. On the 16th call (i=15), the alignment will be 4080 bytes into the first block. Only 16 bytes remain in that block, but 17 parity bytes will be needed. The code reads out-of-bounds from the parity block buffer.

Fortunately this doesnt normally happen, since it can occur only for certain non-default values of fec_roots and when the maximum number of buffers couldnt be allocated due to low memory. For example with block_size=4096 only the following cases are affected:

fec_roots=17: nbufs in [1, 3, 5, 15]
fec_roots=19: nbufs in [1, 229]
fec_roots=21: nbufs in [1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 39, 65, 195]
fec_roots=23: nbufs in [1, 89]

Regardless, fix it by refactoring how the parity blocks are read.

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/3d1b4e2d8ac0a1a1390a117f61ce0ca1c47e3bcb
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/430a05cb926f6bdf53e81460a2c3a553257f3f61