GHSA-GHC8-JMVH-Q86V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-27 06:31 – Updated: 2026-08-27 06:31
VLAI
Details

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

riscv: lib: Fix ZBB strnlen reading past count boundary

The ZBB-optimized strnlen loop loads one word ahead before checking the aligned boundary:

REG_L   t1, SZREG(t0)       // load next word
addi    t0, t0, SZREG       // advance
orc.b   t1, t1
bgeu    t0, t4, 4f          // boundary check AFTER load

where t4 = (s + count) & -SZREG. When s is aligned and count is a multiple of SZREG, t4 equals s + count and the loop loads a full word starting at exactly s + count. If s + count falls on a page boundary with the next page unmapped, this faults.

Fix by computing the aligned boundary from the last valid byte (s + count - 1) instead of s + count. This makes the loop stop at the word containing the last valid byte rather than potentially loading the word after it. The count == 0 case is already handled by the beqz early exit.

Also add a pre-loop guard (bgeu t0, t4) for the case where all valid bytes fit within the first word. With the adjusted boundary, t4 can equal t0, and entering the loop with stale register state from the first-word processing would produce incorrect results.

The final minu clamp ensures the result is still correct when the last loaded word extends past s + count - 1 within the same aligned word.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-74751"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-26T15:16:54Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nriscv: lib: Fix ZBB strnlen reading past count boundary\n\nThe ZBB-optimized strnlen loop loads one word ahead before checking the\naligned boundary:\n\n    REG_L   t1, SZREG(t0)       // load next word\n    addi    t0, t0, SZREG       // advance\n    orc.b   t1, t1\n    bgeu    t0, t4, 4f          // boundary check AFTER load\n\nwhere t4 = (s + count) \u0026 -SZREG.  When s is aligned and count is a\nmultiple of SZREG, t4 equals s + count and the loop loads a full word\nstarting at exactly s + count.  If s + count falls on a page boundary\nwith the next page unmapped, this faults.\n\nFix by computing the aligned boundary from the last valid byte\n(s + count - 1) instead of s + count.  This makes the loop stop at the\nword containing the last valid byte rather than potentially loading the\nword after it.  The count == 0 case is already handled by the beqz\nearly exit.\n\nAlso add a pre-loop guard (bgeu t0, t4) for the case where all valid\nbytes fit within the first word.  With the adjusted boundary, t4 can\nequal t0, and entering the loop with stale register state from the\nfirst-word processing would produce incorrect results.\n\nThe final minu clamp ensures the result is still correct when the last\nloaded word extends past s + count - 1 within the same aligned word.",
  "id": "GHSA-ghc8-jmvh-q86v",
  "modified": "2026-08-27T06:31:31Z",
  "published": "2026-08-27T06:31:31Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-74751"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5d588c684833e678a0008eb69c33190f01a65f4b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e697e30f3dd2da3a1df7dc0980546d5b53aea4b6"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…