CVE-2026-64293

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommufd: Use sizeof(*hdr) instead of sizeof(hdr) in veventq read The bound-check in iommufd_veventq_fops_read() for the normal vEVENT path uses sizeof(hdr) where the surrounding code uses sizeof(*hdr): if (!vevent_for_lost_events_header(cur) && sizeof(hdr) + cur->data_len > count - done) { hdr is declared as struct iommufd_vevent_header *, so sizeof(hdr) evaluates to the size of the pointer. Surrounding code uses sizeof(*hdr) consistently: if (done >= count || sizeof(*hdr) > count - done) { ... if (copy_to_user(buf + done, hdr, sizeof(*hdr))) { ... done += sizeof(*hdr); struct iommufd_vevent_header is currently 8 bytes (two __u32 fields, flags and sequence), so on 64-bit (sizeof(void *) == 8) the two expressions happen to be equal and the check works as intended. On 32-bit (sizeof(void *) == 4) the check under-counts the header by 4 bytes: a vEVENT whose data_len causes 8 + cur->data_len to exceed count - done while 4 + cur->data_len does not will pass the check, then the loop will copy_to_user 8 bytes of header followed by data_len bytes of payload, writing past the user-supplied buffer. It is also a latent bug for any future expansion of struct iommufd_vevent_header beyond sizeof(void *) on 64-bit; the check should not depend on the type happening to match the host pointer width. Use sizeof(*hdr) to match the rest of the function and the actual amount that will be copied.

Is your site exposed to CVE-2026-64293?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

EPSS — Exploit Prediction

0.0021

Probability of exploitation

0.11%

Percentile rank

EPSS estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. A higher score means more likely to be exploited.

References

Other References

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/04a177f91160ee18da98f5689482cf0f589ec869 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0cdbb97a4dbd69abdd2ab998b4fbc7803d4b0b72 https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/be93d186ae88a92e7aa77e122d4e661fa57b1e39

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-64293? +

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommufd: Use sizeof(*hdr) instead of sizeof(hdr) in veventq read The bound-check in iommufd_veventq_fops_read() for the normal vEVENT path uses sizeof(hdr) where the surrounding code uses sizeof(*hdr): if (!vevent_for_lost_events_header(cur) && sizeof(hdr) + cur->data_len > count - done) { hdr is declared as struct iommufd_vevent_header *, so sizeof(hdr) evaluates to the size of the pointer. Surrounding code uses sizeof(*hdr) consistently: if (done >= count || sizeof(*hdr) > count - done) { ... if (copy_to_user(buf + done, hdr, sizeof(*hdr))) { ... done += sizeof(*hdr); struct iommufd_vevent_header is currently 8 bytes (two __u32 fields, flags and sequence), so on 64-bit (sizeof(void *) == 8) the two expressions happen to be equal and the check works as intended. On 32-bit (sizeof(void *) == 4) the check under-counts the header by 4 bytes: a vEVENT whose data_len causes 8 + cur->data_len to exceed count - done while 4 + cur->data_len does not will pass the check, then the loop will copy_to_user 8 bytes of header followed by data_len bytes of payload, writing past the user-supplied buffer. It is also a latent bug for any future expansion of struct iommufd_vevent_header beyond sizeof(void *) on 64-bit; the check should not depend on the type happening to match the host pointer width. Use sizeof(*hdr) to match the rest of the function and the actual amount that will be copied.

How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-64293? +

You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.