CVE-2026-68100

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

ksmbd: validate num_subauth when copying ACE in set_ntacl_dacl

set_ntacl_dacl() copies each ACE from the attacker-controlled stored security descriptor verbatim into the response DACL without checking sid.num_subauth. The ACE bytes (including an unchecked num_subauth) originate from an authenticated SMB2_SET_INFO(SecInfo=DACL) that is stored raw via ksmbd_vfs_set_sd_xattr(); parse_dacl() rejects a bad ACE with break rather than an error, so parse_sec_desc() still returns success and the malformed SD reaches the xattr intact.

On a subsequent SMB2_QUERY_INFO(SecInfo=DACL) for an inode carrying a POSIX access ACL, build_sec_desc() -> set_ntacl_dacl() -> set_posix_acl_entries_dacl() walks the copied ACEs and reads

ntace->sid.sub_auth[ntace->sid.num_subauth - 1]

with num_subauth taken straight from the stored SD. Since sub_auth[] is fixed at SID_MAX_SUB_AUTHORITIES (15), a crafted num_subauth (e.g. 255) drives an out-of-bounds heap read of ~1 KB with an offset fully controlled by an authenticated client.

The sibling functions already gate this field: parse_dacl() – num_subauth == 0 || > SID_MAX_SUB_AUTHORITIES parse_sid() – num_subauth > SID_MAX_SUB_AUTHORITIES smb_copy_sid() – min_t(u8, num_subauth, SID_MAX_SUB_AUTHORITIES) set_ntacl_dacl() is the lone inconsistent path that omits the check.

Add the same num_subauth validation in set_ntacl_dacl() before copying the ACE, matching the gate already enforced by parse_dacl().

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/26cb845e22a00c85bf566337417fa33492395f10
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/47f0b34f6bc98ed85bfdc293e8f3e432ec24958d
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5acbd3012fd4a7ccfebd91ea6f784120084eb897
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b6d3cc6a524416dfdb2b47e4bba2e7e20011d056
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e31fada5143784bc05c7ae44c79eed9b7a2e147e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fb3dc8e6da46a1ccad1956cda57de29d9b3033e0