CVE-2026-80810 — io_uring/rsrc: fix folio size overflow in io_vec_fill_bvec()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring/rsrc: fix folio size overflow in io_vec_fill_bvec() io_vec_fill_bvec() computes the folio size with a plain int 1: unsigned long folio_size = 1 << imu->folio_shift; imu->folio_shift is unsigned int and comes from folio_shift() of the folio backing the registered buffer, so it can be 32 or more on a 64 bit kernel. Shifting int 1 that far is undefined, and on x86 and arm64 the count is taken modulo 32, so a shift of 34 yields 4 rather than 16G. Every other folio_shift shift in this file already uses 1UL. The result is that the segment estimate and the fill loop disagree. io_estimate_bvec_size() sizes the bvec array with the real shift: max_segs += (iov[i].iov_len >> shift) + 2; so a 1M iovec on a 16G folio is charged 2 segments, while io_vec_fill_bvec() then walks the same iovec in folio_size chunks of 4 bytes and writes res_bvec[bvec_idx] a quarter of a million times, past the end of the array it was given. src_bvec is advanced once per iteration as well, so imu->bvec is read past its end at the same time. validate_fixed_range() only checks that the range is inside the registered buffer and does not bound the segment count. Reaching it needs a folio with a shift of at least 32, which means a gigantic hugetlb page: 16G on arm64 with 64K pages, where CONT_PMD_SHIFT is 34 and hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT) registers that size, and likewise on powerpc. x86_64 tops out at 1G, so a shift of 30, which still fits in int and is unaffected. Use 1UL, as the rest of the file does.
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)+2
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 | ≥ 9ef4cbbcb4ac3786a1a4164507511b76b2a572c5 and < 45c945107e007b1fb73e21cd220277652a45521a≥ 9ef4cbbcb4ac3786a1a4164507511b76b2a572c5 and < 6b308c37fbeba3aa8c634fb1ed53e2f63a5d5a5c≥ 9ef4cbbcb4ac3786a1a4164507511b76b2a572c5 and < 3267d7c8ba51642117f7bdd1ece02b2540668476≥ 9ef4cbbcb4ac3786a1a4164507511b76b2a572c5 and < 3f3a6a16bbe8bde76532d9415438f8cdef439e5dversion 6.15 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 15, 2026 → Oct 27, 2026 · 12 reading(s) · max 0.21%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× References added · Oct 19, 2026 – Oct 19, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
6 on the record
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/3f3a6a16bbe8bde76532d9415438f8cdef439e5d
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/6b308c37fbeba3aa8c634fb1ed53e2f63a5d5a5c
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/45c945107e007b1fb73e21cd220277652a45521a
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-ccgp-64pj-g833
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-80810
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/3267d7c8ba51642117f7bdd1ece02b2540668476
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Unknown CVE-2026-99215 power: supply: core: prevent unregistering a power supply while a callback runs 12h
- Unknown CVE-2026-99216 Drivers: hv: Don't reset VMBus connection state on error/exit paths 12h
- Unknown CVE-2026-99214 drm/vc4: hdmi: Move packet RAM enable to PM runtime 12h
- Unknown CVE-2026-99207 scsi: target: Disable interrupts while holding delayed_cmd_lock 12h
- Unknown CVE-2026-99208 drm/xe/oa: Zero OA buffer at allocation 12h
- Unknown CVE-2026-99209 drm/xe: skip eviction of a BO with no resource 12h
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 CVSS score published by NVD, the CNA, CISA or GitHub so far.
- 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-2026-80810 is "io_uring/rsrc: fix folio size overflow in io_vec_fill_bvec()", rated Unknown. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. EPSS 0.21% 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.