GHSA-JCCH-XVF6-72QC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-25 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-25 12:31
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

rust_binder: use a u64 stride when cleaning up the offsets array

Allocation's Drop walks the offsets array (binder_size_t = u64 entries), cleaning up the objects, but it used usize instead of u64 for both the stride and the per-entry read.

On 64-bit kernels (usize == u64) this is harmless, but on 32-bit kernels it walks the 8-byte entries in 4-byte steps, iterating an N-entry array 2N times, and reads the always-zero high word as offset 0, cleaning up the object at offset 0 N extra times. As a result the referenced node or handle ends up with a lower reference count than it actually has (a refcount over-decrement), and binder's reference accounting is corrupted; for example, the owner can be notified of a strong reference release (BR_RELEASE) even though references still remain.

Change the stride to u64, and read each entry as a u64, narrowing it to usize with try_into().

On 32-bit ARM, when this over-decrement would drive a count below zero, the driver's existing refcount guard refuses it and fires:

rust_binder: Failure: refcount underflow!

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-64467"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-25T10:17:32Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nrust_binder: use a u64 stride when cleaning up the offsets array\n\nAllocation\u0027s Drop walks the offsets array (binder_size_t = u64 entries),\ncleaning up the objects, but it used usize instead of u64 for both the\nstride and the per-entry read.\n\nOn 64-bit kernels (usize == u64) this is harmless, but on 32-bit kernels\nit walks the 8-byte entries in 4-byte steps, iterating an N-entry array\n2N times, and reads the always-zero high word as offset 0, cleaning up\nthe object at offset 0 N extra times. As a result the referenced node or\nhandle ends up with a lower reference count than it actually has (a\nrefcount over-decrement), and binder\u0027s reference accounting is corrupted;\nfor example, the owner can be notified of a strong reference release\n(BR_RELEASE) even though references still remain.\n\nChange the stride to u64, and read each entry as a u64, narrowing it to\nusize with try_into().\n\nOn 32-bit ARM, when this over-decrement would drive a count below zero,\nthe driver\u0027s existing refcount guard refuses it and fires:\n\n  rust_binder: Failure: refcount underflow!",
  "id": "GHSA-jcch-xvf6-72qc",
  "modified": "2026-07-25T12:31:36Z",
  "published": "2026-07-25T12:31:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64467"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/74920b1b4e474ba7a4de4323c0458deec49d210b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/803c8a9502e9b97cd6ae937618ef4a8fd6274343"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/89b8cc948dce661af87527623b3a41cdd115e2f9"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…