In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: detect invalid INLINE_DATA + EXTENTS flag combination
syzbot reported a BUG_ON in ext4_es_cache_extent() when opening a verity
file on a corrupted ext4 filesystem mounted without a journal.
The issue is that the filesystem has an inode with both the INLINE_DATA
and EXTENTS flags set:
EXT4-fs error (device loop0): ext4_cache_extents:545: inode #15:
comm syz.0.17: corrupted extent tree: lblk 0 < prev 66
Investigation revealed that the inode has both flags set:
DEBUG: inode 15 - flag=1, i_inline_off=164, has_inline=1, extents_flag=1
This is an invalid combination since an inode should have either:
- INLINE_DATA: data stored directly in the inode
- EXTENTS: data stored in extent-mapped blocks
Having both flags causes ext4_has_inline_data() to return true, skipping
extent tree validation in __ext4_iget(). The unvalidated out-of-order
extents then trigger a BUG_ON in ext4_es_cache_extent() due to integer
underflow when calculating hole sizes.
Fix this by detecting this invalid flag combination early in ext4_iget()
and rejecting the corrupted inode.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 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 2026-11-03). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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