In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: always drain queued discard work in ext4_mb_release()
While reviewing recent ext4 patch[1], Sashiko raised the following
concern[2]:
> If the filesystem is initially mounted with the discard option,
> deleting files will populate sbi->s_discard_list and queue
> s_discard_work. If it is then remounted with nodiscard, the
> EXT4_MOUNT_DISCARD flag is cleared, but the pending s_discard_work is
> neither cancelled nor flushed.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]/
[2] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260319094545.19291-1-qiang.zhang%40linux.dev
The concern was valid, but it had nothing to do with the patch[1].
One of the problems with Sashiko in its current (early) form is that
it will detect pre-existing issues and report it as a problem with the
patch that it is reviewing.
In practice, it would be hard to hit deliberately (unless you are a
malicious syzkaller fuzzer), since it would involve mounting the file
system with -o discard, and then deleting a large number of files,
remounting the file system with -o nodiscard, and then immediately
unmounting the file system before the queued discard work has a change
to drain on its own.
Fix it because it's a real bug, and to avoid Sashiko from raising this
concern when analyzing future patches to mballoc.c.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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