Strix
63K

CVE-2026-80901

Unknown

Last modified

CVE-2026-80901 is a vulnerability of currently unknown severity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvs: fix the checksum validations ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel. Also, Sashiko points out that handle_response_icmp() being common for IPv4 and IPv6 is missing the pseudo-header calculation while validating ICMPv6 messages from real servers which is a problem if checksum is not validated by the hardware. Fix the problems by creating ip_vs_checksum_common_check() helper and use it for TCP/UDP/ICMP both for IPv4 and IPv6. Rely on the nf_checksum() for validating the ICMP messages but use it also for TCP and UDP. Use correct IP offset for IP_VS_DBG_RL_PKT for TCP/UDP/SCTP. IPVS packets (TCP/UDP/SCTP/ICMP) do not need checksum validation on LOCAL_OUT (local clients or local real servers) and on FORWARD (traffic from servers on LAN). Do it only on LOCAL_IN, in case nf_checksum() is not called on PRE_ROUTING. Also, ip_vs_checksum_complete() can be marked static..

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvs: fix the checksum validations ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel. Also, Sashiko points out that handle_response_icmp() being common for IPv4 and IPv6 is missing the pseudo-header calculation while validating ICMPv6 messages from real servers which is a problem if checksum is not validated by the hardware. Fix the problems by creating ip_vs_checksum_common_check() helper and use it for TCP/UDP/ICMP both for IPv4 and IPv6. Rely on the nf_checksum() for validating the ICMP messages but use it also for TCP and UDP. Use correct IP offset for IP_VS_DBG_RL_PKT for TCP/UDP/SCTP. IPVS packets (TCP/UDP/SCTP/ICMP) do not need checksum validation on LOCAL_OUT (local clients or local real servers) and on FORWARD (traffic from servers on LAN). Do it only on LOCAL_IN, in case nf_checksum() is not called on PRE_ROUTING. Also, ip_vs_checksum_complete() can be marked static.

Affected Software

Source: CNA advisory (CVE.org). NVD analysis pending.

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux>= 2a3b791e6e1169f374224d164738e9f7be703d77, < d418d73acf8be62744dc47359dfdde8c2148845d; >= 2a3b791e6e1169f374224d164738e9f7be703d77, < b3869d9b54e76dff64118dee4c8fd9302fcd5171; >= 2a3b791e6e1169f374224d164738e9f7be703d77, < 9cbe2c0fdb71904ee929b1851cdc1c73341a03c0; >= 2a3b791e6e1169f374224d164738e9f7be703d77, < 00eb23829fd08df1b5e057cb6b625996a70e7e65; >= 2a3b791e6e1169f374224d164738e9f7be703d77, < 5558a85add073215b298f3e044ff9a6d86d714ae; >= 2a3b791e6e1169f374224d164738e9f7be703d77, < e876b75b9020a97bbdc79721e7fc749024891c65
LinuxLinux2.6.28

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Received

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-80901?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipvs: fix the checksum validations ip_vs_in_icmp_v6() is missing checksum validation for ICMPv6 packets from clients. In fact, as for TCP/UDP we should validate the checksum for ICMP packets only when we mangle the packets on MASQ or on reply for tunnel. Also, Sashiko points out that handle_response_icmp() being common for IPv4 and IPv6 is missing the pseudo-header calculation while validating ICMPv6 messages from real servers which is a problem if checksum is not validated by the hardware. Fix the problems by creating ip_vs_checksum_common_check() helper and use it for TCP/UDP/ICMP both for IPv4 and IPv6. Rely on the nf_checksum() for validating the ICMP messages but use it also for TCP and UDP. Use correct IP offset for IP_VS_DBG_RL_PKT for TCP/UDP/SCTP. IPVS packets (TCP/UDP/SCTP/ICMP) do not need checksum validation on LOCAL_OUT (local clients or local real servers) and on FORWARD (traffic from servers on LAN). Do it only on LOCAL_IN, in case nf_checksum() is not called on PRE_ROUTING. Also, ip_vs_checksum_complete() can be marked static.
How severe is CVE-2026-80901?
Severity scoring for CVE-2026-80901 is pending analysis.
How do I fix CVE-2026-80901?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

How Strix Helps

Related CVEs from 2026

View all 2026CVEs →

Are you affected by CVE-2026-80901?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST