CVE-2026-63923 — octeontx2-af: validate body pcifunc in rvu_mbox_handler_rep_event_notify
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: octeontx2-af: validate body pcifunc in rvu_mbox_handler_rep_event_notify rvu_mbox_handler_rep_event_notify() in drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/ octeontx2/af/rvu_rep.c queues a sender-controlled REP_EVENT_NOTIFY request body verbatim, and rvu_rep_up_notify() then forwards event->pcifunc (the nested body field, distinct from the AF-normalised header pcifunc) into rvu_get_pfvf(), rvu_get_pf() and the AF->PF mailbox device index without any bounds check. A VF attached to a PF that has been put into switchdev representor mode reaches this path: the VF mailbox handler otx2_pfvf_mbox_handler() forwards every message id including MBOX_MSG_REP_EVENT_NOTIFY to AF without an allowlist, and the AF dispatcher rewrites only msg->pcifunc, leaving struct rep_event::pcifunc attacker-controlled. The sibling rvu_mbox_handler_esw_cfg() refuses requests whose header pcifunc is not rvu->rep_pcifunc; this handler has no equivalent gate. An out-of-range body pcifunc selects an &rvu->pf[]/&rvu->hwvf[] element past the allocated array and, for RVU_EVENT_MAC_ADDR_CHANGE, turns into a six-byte attacker-chosen OOB ether_addr_copy() target inside the queued worker; KASAN reports a slab-out-of-bounds write in rvu_rep_wq_handler. Reject malformed requests at the handler entry by gating on is_pf_func_valid(), which is already the canonical PF/VF range check in this driver; expose it via rvu.h so callers in rvu_rep.c can use it instead of open-coding the same range arithmetic.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
- Technical severity (high)+6
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | ≥ b8fea84a0468404fe3b3327ad54d583950be9dec and < 4467fa514482bbce82f73788943c815f3d126ab3≥ b8fea84a0468404fe3b3327ad54d583950be9dec and < 68be0260e2a02ff9b18a8678d5f8d1715fa20138≥ b8fea84a0468404fe3b3327ad54d583950be9dec and < 2156a29aecfffa2eb7c558255690084efbe9f3b0version 6.13 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 2.0 | 6.0 | 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 8.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | Linux via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67) Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 8.8
- Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 15h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 15h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98431 RDMA/uverbs: Fix mmap_lock/disassociation_lock circular dependency 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98430 RDMA/efa: Keep admin queues alive while IRQ is registered 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98429 RDMA/efa: Keep EQ resources alive while IRQ is registered 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98428 ALSA: usb: 6fire: Avoid embedded URBs 1d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No CWE classification.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-63923 is "octeontx2-af: validate body pcifunc in rvu_mbox_handler_rep_event_notify", rated High. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.17% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.