CVE 7.8 HIGH

xfrm: espintcp: do not reuse an in-progress partial send_CVE-2026-52935

7.8 / 10
HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Description

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

xfrm: espintcp: do not reuse an in-progress partial send

espintcp keeps a single in-flight transmit in ctx->partial.
Before building a new sk_msg, espintcp_sendmsg() first tries to flush
that state through espintcp_push_msgs().

For blocking callers, espintcp_push_msgs() may return success even when
the previous partial send is still pending. espintcp_sendmsg() would
then reinitialize emsg->skmsg and reuse ctx->partial while the old
transfer still owns that state.

Do not rebuild the send message when ctx->partial is still in progress.
If espintcp_push_msgs() returns with emsg->len still set, fail the new
send instead of overwriting the live partial state.

This is a memory-safety fix: reusing the live partial-send state can
leave a stale offset attached to a new sk_msg and lead to an out-of-
bounds read in the send path.

tcp_sendmsg_locked() already handles waiting for send buffer memory, so
the fix here is just to preserve espintcp's one-message-at-a-time
transmit state.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-52935
Source Linux
Published Jun 24, 2026 at 07:14
Modified Jun 28, 2026 at 06:36

Affected Product

Vendor Linux
Product Linux
Version e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Affected Versions Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux e27cca96cd68fa2c6814c90f9a1cfd36bb68c593
Linux Linux 5.6

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🔒 Your email address will not be published.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.