CVE-2026-22998
CVE Descriptions
nvme-tcp: fix NULL pointer dereferences in nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvme-tcp: fix NULL pointer dereferences in nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec Commit efa56305908b ("nvmet-tcp: Fix a kernel panic when host sends an invalid H2C PDU length") added ttag bounds checking and data_offset validation in nvmet_tcp_handle_h2c_data_pdu(), but it did not validate whether the command's data structures (cmd->req.sg and cmd->iov) have been properly initialized before processing H2C_DATA PDUs. The nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec() function dereferences these pointers without NULL checks. This can be triggered by sending H2C_DATA PDU immediately after the ICREQ/ICRESP handshake, before sending a CONNECT command or NVMe write command. Attack vectors that trigger NULL pointer dereferences: 1. H2C_DATA PDU sent before CONNECT → both pointers NULL 2. H2C_DATA PDU for READ command → cmd->req.sg allocated, cmd->iov NULL 3. H2C_DATA PDU for uninitialized command slot → both pointers NULL The fix validates both cmd->req.sg and cmd->iov before calling nvmet_tcp_build_pdu_iovec(). Both checks are required because: - Uninitialized commands: both NULL - READ commands: cmd->req.sg allocated, cmd->iov NULL - WRITE commands: both allocatedCVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| NULL Pointer Dereference The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.5 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.4.268 To (excluding) 5.5
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.10.209 To (excluding) 5.10.249
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.15.148 To (excluding) 5.15.199
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.1.75 To (excluding) 6.1.162
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.6.14 To (excluding) 6.6.122
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7.2 To (excluding) 6.12.67
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.7
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
