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.
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.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
Advisories
No advisories yet.
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Fri, 04 Sep 2026 20:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Weaknesses | CWE-20 |
Fri, 04 Sep 2026 17:30:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | |
| Title | ipvs: fix the checksum validations | |
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| References |
|
|
Projects
Sign in to view the affected projects.
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2026-09-04T17:11:15.780Z
Reserved: 2026-08-26T14:34:25.800Z
Link: CVE-2026-80901
No data.
Status : Received
Published: 2026-09-04T18:17:58.767
Modified: 2026-09-04T18:17:58.767
Link: CVE-2026-80901
No data.
OpenCVE Enrichment
Updated: 2026-09-04T20:30:16Z
Weaknesses