In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to avoid panic once fallocation fails for pinfile
syzbot reports a f2fs bug as below:
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/segment.c:2746!
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 5323 Comm: syz.0.0 Not tainted 6.13.0-rc2-syzkaller-00018-g7cb1b4663150 #0
RIP: 0010:get_new_segment fs/f2fs/segment.c:2746 [inline]
RIP: 0010:new_curseg+0x1f52/0x1f70 fs/f2fs/segment.c:2876
Call Trace:
__allocate_new_segment+0x1ce/0x940 fs/f2fs/segment.c:3210
f2fs_allocate_new_section fs/f2fs/segment.c:3224 [inline]
f2fs_allocate_pinning_section+0xfa/0x4e0 fs/f2fs/segment.c:3238
f2fs_expand_inode_data+0x696/0xca0 fs/f2fs/file.c:1830
f2fs_fallocate+0x537/0xa10 fs/f2fs/file.c:1940
vfs_fallocate+0x569/0x6e0 fs/open.c:327
do_vfs_ioctl+0x258c/0x2e40 fs/ioctl.c:885
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:904 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl+0x80/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:892
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
Concurrent pinfile allocation may run out of free section, result in
panic in get_new_segment(), let's expand pin_sem lock coverage to
include f2fs_gc(), so that we can make sure to reclaim enough free
space for following allocation.
In addition, do below changes to enhance error path handling:
- call f2fs_bug_on() only in non-pinfile allocation path in
get_new_segment().
- call reset_curseg_fields() to reset all fields of curseg in
new_curseg()
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 2026-10-25). 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