CVE-2026-64191

What is known

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: i2c: stub: Reject I2C block transfers with invalid length The I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA case in stub_xfer() uses data->block[0] as the transfer length. The existing check only clamps it to avoid overrunning the chip->words[256] register array, but does not validate it against I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX (32), which is the limit of the union i2c_smbus_data.block buffer (34 bytes total). The driver is a development/test tool (CONFIG_I2C_STUB=m, not built by default) that must be loaded with a chip_addr= parameter. A local user with access to /dev/i2c-* can issue an I2C_SMBUS ioctl with I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA and data->block[0] > 32, causing stub_xfer() to read or write past the end of the union i2c_smbus_data.block buffer: BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in stub_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c:223) Read of size 1 at addr ffff88800abcfd92 by task exploit/81 Call Trace: <TASK> stub_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-stub.c:223) __i2c_smbus_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c:593) i2c_smbus_xfer (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c:536) i2cdev_ioctl_smbus (drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c:391) i2cdev_ioctl (drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c:478) __x64_sys_ioctl (fs/ioctl.c:583) do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94) entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130) </TASK> The bug exists because i2c-stub implements .smbus_xfer directly, bypassing the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX validation in i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(). The I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA case in the same function correctly validates against I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX, but the I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA case does not. Fix by rejecting transfers with data->block[0] == 0 or data->block[0] > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX with -EINVAL, consistent with both the I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA case in the same function and the I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA validation in i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated().

Business impact

Successful exploitation of CVE-2026-64191, a high vulnerability (CVSS 7.8) affecting the affected product, may affect the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the vulnerable environment. The exact impact depends on the installed version, exposed interfaces and deployment configuration.

Recommended administrator action

Confirm whether the affected product is present and compare installed versions with the vendor advisory and NVD record. Apply the vendor patch or documented mitigation; until remediation is complete, reduce exposure of affected interfaces, review relevant logs and monitor for indicators of exploitation. DataHouse can support version verification, managed patching, network exposure reduction, log review and backup validation for dedicated, cloud and colocated environments.

Sources

• NVD
• Reference
• Reference
• Reference
• Reference
• Reference
• Reference
• Reference
• Reference