In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: fix i_disksize exceeding i_size problem in paritally written case
It is possible for i_disksize can exceed i_size, triggering a warning.
generic_perform_write
copied = iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic(len) // copied < len
ext4_da_write_end
| ext4_update_i_disksize
| new_i_size = pos + copied;
| WRITE_ONCE(EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize, newsize) // update i_disksize
| generic_write_end
| copied = block_write_end(copied, len) // copied = 0
| if (unlikely(copied < len))
| if (!PageUptodate(page))
| copied = 0;
| if (pos + copied > inode->i_size) // return false
if (unlikely(copied == 0))
goto again;
if (unlikely(iov_iter_fault_in_readable(i, bytes))) {
status = -EFAULT;
break;
}
We get i_disksize greater than i_size here, which could trigger WARNING
check 'i_size_read(inode) < EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize' while doing dio:
ext4_dio_write_iter
iomap_dio_rw
__iomap_dio_rw // return err, length is not aligned to 512
ext4_handle_inode_extension
WARN_ON_ONCE(i_size_read(inode) < EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize) // Oops
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 2609 at fs/ext4/file.c:319
CPU: 2 PID: 2609 Comm: aa Not tainted 6.3.0-rc2
RIP: 0010:ext4_file_write_iter+0xbc7
Call Trace:
vfs_write+0x3b1
ksys_write+0x77
do_syscall_64+0x39
Fix it by updating 'copied' value before updating i_disksize just like
ext4_write_inline_data_end() does.
A reproducer can be found in the buganizer link below.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-17). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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