CVE 7.5 HIGH

net: stmmac: Prevent NULL deref when RX memory exhausted_CVE-2026-46110

7.5 / 10
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Description

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

net: stmmac: Prevent NULL deref when RX memory exhausted

The CPU receives frames from the MAC through conventional DMA: the CPU
allocates buffers for the MAC, then the MAC fills them and returns
ownership to the CPU. For each hardware RX queue, the CPU and MAC
coordinate through a shared ring array of DMA descriptors: one
descriptor per DMA buffer. Each descriptor includes the buffer's
physical address and a status flag ("OWN") indicating which side owns
the buffer: OWN=0 for CPU, OWN=1 for MAC. The CPU is only allowed to set
the flag and the MAC is only allowed to clear it, and both must move
through the ring in sequence: thus the ring is used for both
"submissions" and "completions."

In the stmmac driver, stmmac_rx() bookmarks its position in the ring
with the `cur_rx` index. The main receive loop in that function checks
for rx_descs[cur_rx].own=0, gives the corresponding buffer to the
network stack (NULLing the pointer), and increments `cur_rx` modulo the
ring size. After the loop exits, stmmac_rx_refill(), which bookmarks its
position with `dirty_rx`, allocates fresh buffers and rearms the
descriptors (setting OWN=1). If it fails any allocation, it simply stops
early (leaving OWN=0) and will retry where it left off when next called.

This means descriptors have a three-stage lifecycle (terms my own):
- `empty` (OWN=1, buffer valid)
- `full` (OWN=0, buffer valid and populated)
- `dirty` (OWN=0, buffer NULL)

But because stmmac_rx() only checks OWN, it confuses `full`/`dirty`. In
the past (see 'Fixes:'), there was a bug where the loop could cycle
`cur_rx` all the way back to the first descriptor it dirtied, resulting
in a NULL dereference when mistaken for `full`. The aforementioned
commit resolved that *specific* failure by capping the loop's iteration
limit at `dma_rx_size - 1`, but this is only a partial fix: if the
previous stmmac_rx_refill() didn't complete, then there are leftover
`dirty` descriptors that the loop might encounter without needing to
cycle fully around. The current code therefore panics (see 'Closes:')
when stmmac_rx_refill() is memory-starved long enough for `cur_rx` to
catch up to `dirty_rx`.

Fix this by explicitly checking, before advancing `cur_rx`, if the next
entry is dirty; exit the loop if so. This prevents processing of the
final, used descriptor until stmmac_rx_refill() succeeds, but
fully prevents the `cur_rx == dirty_rx` ambiguity as the previous bugfix
intended: so remove the clamp as well. Since stmmac_rx_zc() is a
copy-paste-and-tweak of stmmac_rx() and the code structure is identical,
any fix to stmmac_rx() will also need a corresponding fix for
stmmac_rx_zc(). Therefore, apply the same check there.

In stmmac_rx() (not stmmac_rx_zc()), a related bug remains: after the
MAC sets OWN=0 on the final descriptor, it will be unable to send any
further DMA-complete IRQs until it's given more `empty` descriptors.
Currently, the driver simply *hopes* that the next stmmac_rx_refill()
succeeds, risking an indefinite stall of the receive process if not. But
this is not a regression, so it can be addressed in a future change.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-46110
Source Linux
Published May 28, 2026 at 09:35
Modified May 30, 2026 at 10:47

Affected Product

Vendor Linux
Product Linux
Version 779334e59850f863bf34665e0ff0b6faf126873b
Affected Versions Linux Linux 779334e59850f863bf34665e0ff0b6faf126873b
Linux Linux b6cb4541853c7ee512111b0e7ddf3cb66c99c137
Linux Linux b6cb4541853c7ee512111b0e7ddf3cb66c99c137
Linux Linux b6cb4541853c7ee512111b0e7ddf3cb66c99c137
Linux Linux b6cb4541853c7ee512111b0e7ddf3cb66c99c137
Linux Linux 7414a28de1b3b028714859078c00a874f9feff52
Linux Linux b435b4573240b5530830a1a60e005c6fcfd928a0
Linux Linux 6.6.3
Linux Linux 6.1.64
Linux Linux 6.5.13
Linux Linux 6.7

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.