CVE-2026-72464
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: xprtrdma: Repost Receive buffers for malformed replies rpcrdma_wc_receive() decrements the transport's Receive count for every completion before it dispatches a successful Receive to rpcrdma_reply_handler(). The handler must post a replacement Receive WR before returning unless ownership of the rep has moved elsewhere, as on the backchannel path. Commit 2ae50ad68cd7 ("xprtrdma: Close window between waking RPC senders and posting Receives") moved the Receive refill out of rpcrdma_wc_receive(), where it had run ahead of every reply, into rpcrdma_reply_handler() so that the responder's credit grant could be parsed before reposting. The bad-version and short-reply exits never reach that refill: they recycle the rep and return without calling rpcrdma_post_recvs(). A remote peer can therefore drain the client's posted Receive queue by sending a sustained stream of replies that are shorter than the fixed transport header or that carry an unrecognized RPC/RDMA version. Each such reply consumes one posted Receive without replacing it. Once the queue empties, the peer's next Send finds no posted Receive and the transport stalls until reconnect. Route both malformed-reply exits through the shared repost tail after recycling the rep, refilling against buf->rb_credits, the most recent accepted credit grant. Neither exit updates the congestion window, so RPCs admitted under the previous grant remain in flight awaiting replies. A smaller refill target would let a stream of malformed replies ratchet the posted Receive count down to the batch floor while the congestion window still admits rb_credits RPCs; a burst of valid replies to those RPCs could then overrun the posted Receives, and because the client connects with rnr_retry_count of zero, a single RNR NAK terminates the connection. Refilling against rb_credits also restores the target that applied to malformed replies before commit 2ae50ad68cd7 ("xprtrdma: Close window between waking RPC senders and posting Receives") when rpcrdma_post_recvs() computed it from rb_credits internally. rb_credits is at least one from connection establishment onward, so the repost path always keeps Receives posted.
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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 $4,900. 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-2026-72464 — 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-2026-72464 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