CVE 7.5 HIGH

libceph: handle rbtree insertion error in decode_choose_args()_CVE-2026-52954

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:

libceph: handle rbtree insertion error in decode_choose_args()

A message of type CEPH_MSG_OSD_MAP contains an OSD map that itself
contains a CRUSH map. The received CRUSH map may optionally contain
choose_args that get decoded in decode_choose_args(). In this function,
num_choose_arg_maps is read from the message, and a corresponding number
of crush_choose_arg_maps gets decoded afterwards. Each
crush_choose_arg_map has a choose_args_index, which serves as the key
when inserting it into the choose_args rbtree of the decoded crush_map.
If a (potentially corrupted) message contains two crush_choose_arg_maps
with the same index, the assertion in insert_choose_arg_map() triggers a
kernel BUG when trying to insert the second crush_choose_arg_map.

This patch fixes the issue by switching to the non-asserting rbtree
insertion function and rejecting the message if the insertion fails.

[ idryomov: changelog ]

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-52954
Source Linux
Published Jun 24, 2026 at 16:28
Modified Jun 28, 2026 at 06:37

Affected Product

Vendor Linux
Product Linux
Version 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Affected Versions Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Linux Linux 0
Linux Linux 0
Linux Linux 0
Linux Linux 0
Linux Linux 0
Linux Linux 0
Linux Linux 0

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🔒 Your email address will not be published.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.