CVE-2026-52956

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

libceph: Fix potential out-of-bounds access in __ceph_x_decrypt()

In __ceph_x_decrypt(), a part of the buffer p is interpreted as a ceph_x_encrypt_header, and the magic field of this struct is accessed. This happens without any guarantee that the buffer is large enough to hold this struct. The function parameter ciphertext_len represents the length of the ciphertext to decrypt and is guaranteed to be at most the remaining size of the allocated buffer p. However, this value is not necessarily greater than sizeof(ceph_x_encrypt_header). E.g., a message frame of type FRAME_TAG_AUTH_REPLY_MORE, that is just as long to hold the ciphertext at its end with a ciphertext_len of 8 or less, can trigger an out-of-bounds memory access when accessing hdr->magic.

This patch fixes the issue by adding a check to ensure that the decrypted plaintext in the buffer is large enough to represent at least the ceph_x_encrypt_header.

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/821365487aa58d06bda65c676ba215d506ba9768
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c7e9b53aebe401970f1b5f5a01b4e021b18e8bb2