CVE-2026-72129
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvmet-rdma: handle inline data with a nonzero offset nvmet_rdma_use_inline_sg() maps the host-controlled inline data offset into the per-command inline scatterlist. The bounds check admits any offset with off + len <= inline_data_size, but the mapping still assumes the data begins in the first inline page: sg->offset = off; sg->length = min_t(int, len, PAGE_SIZE - off); When a port is configured with inline_data_size > PAGE_SIZE (settable up to max(SZ_16K, PAGE_SIZE)), an offset in (PAGE_SIZE, inline_data_size] makes "PAGE_SIZE - off" underflow, so sg->length is set to ~4 GiB and the block backend reads far past the first inline page. num_pages(len) also ignores the offset, so an in-bounds offset whose [off, off+len) span crosses a page boundary under-counts the scatterlist. Map the offset properly: split it into a page index and an in-page offset, start the scatterlist at that page, and size the page count from page_off + len. Because the request scatterlist may now start at inline_sg[page_idx] rather than inline_sg[0], generalize the inline-SGL identity test in nvmet_rdma_release_rsp() to a range test; otherwise the persistent inline scatterlist is mistaken for an allocated one and nvmet_req_free_sgls() frees an inline page (and warns in free_large_kmalloc()).
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $5,750. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-72129 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-72129 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data