In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: fix kernel-infoleak in nilfs_ioctl_wrap_copy()
The ioctl helper function nilfs_ioctl_wrap_copy(), which exchanges a
metadata array to/from user space, may copy uninitialized buffer regions
to user space memory for read-only ioctl commands NILFS_IOCTL_GET_SUINFO
and NILFS_IOCTL_GET_CPINFO.
This can occur when the element size of the user space metadata given by
the v_size member of the argument nilfs_argv structure is larger than the
size of the metadata element (nilfs_suinfo structure or nilfs_cpinfo
structure) on the file system side.
KMSAN-enabled kernels detect this issue as follows:
BUG: KMSAN: kernel-infoleak in instrument_copy_to_user
include/linux/instrumented.h:121 [inline]
BUG: KMSAN: kernel-infoleak in _copy_to_user+0xc0/0x100 lib/usercopy.c:33
instrument_copy_to_user include/linux/instrumented.h:121 [inline]
_copy_to_user+0xc0/0x100 lib/usercopy.c:33
copy_to_user include/linux/uaccess.h:169 [inline]
nilfs_ioctl_wrap_copy+0x6fa/0xc10 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:99
nilfs_ioctl_get_info fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1173 [inline]
nilfs_ioctl+0x2402/0x4450 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1290
nilfs_compat_ioctl+0x1b8/0x200 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1343
__do_compat_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:968 [inline]
__se_compat_sys_ioctl+0x7dd/0x1000 fs/ioctl.c:910
__ia32_compat_sys_ioctl+0x93/0xd0 fs/ioctl.c:910
do_syscall_32_irqs_on arch/x86/entry/common.c:112 [inline]
__do_fast_syscall_32+0xa2/0x100 arch/x86/entry/common.c:178
do_fast_syscall_32+0x37/0x80 arch/x86/entry/common.c:203
do_SYSENTER_32+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/common.c:246
entry_SYSENTER_compat_after_hwframe+0x70/0x82
Uninit was created at:
__alloc_pages+0x9f6/0xe90 mm/page_alloc.c:5572
alloc_pages+0xab0/0xd80 mm/mempolicy.c:2287
__get_free_pages+0x34/0xc0 mm/page_alloc.c:5599
nilfs_ioctl_wrap_copy+0x223/0xc10 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:74
nilfs_ioctl_get_info fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1173 [inline]
nilfs_ioctl+0x2402/0x4450 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1290
nilfs_compat_ioctl+0x1b8/0x200 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1343
__do_compat_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:968 [inline]
__se_compat_sys_ioctl+0x7dd/0x1000 fs/ioctl.c:910
__ia32_compat_sys_ioctl+0x93/0xd0 fs/ioctl.c:910
do_syscall_32_irqs_on arch/x86/entry/common.c:112 [inline]
__do_fast_syscall_32+0xa2/0x100 arch/x86/entry/common.c:178
do_fast_syscall_32+0x37/0x80 arch/x86/entry/common.c:203
do_SYSENTER_32+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/common.c:246
entry_SYSENTER_compat_after_hwframe+0x70/0x82
Bytes 16-127 of 3968 are uninitialized
...
This eliminates the leak issue by initializing the page allocated as
buffer using get_zeroed_page().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-04). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it