In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: don't cache extent during splitting extent
Caching extents during the splitting process is risky, as it may result
in stale extents remaining in the status tree. Moreover, in most cases,
the corresponding extent block entries are likely already cached before
the split happens, making caching here not particularly useful.
Assume we have an unwritten extent, and then DIO writes the first half.
[UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent
[UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] extent status tree
|<- ->| ----> dio write this range
First, when ext4_split_extent_at() splits this extent, it truncates the
existing extent and then inserts a new one. During this process, this
extent status entry may be shrunk, and calls to ext4_find_extent() and
ext4_cache_extents() may occur, which could potentially insert the
truncated range as a hole into the extent status tree. After the split
is completed, this hole is not replaced with the correct status.
[UUUUUUU|UUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent
[UUUUUUU|HHHHHHHH] extent status tree H: hole
Then, the outer calling functions will not correct this remaining hole
extent either. Finally, if we perform a delayed buffer write on this
latter part, it will re-insert the delayed extent and cause an error in
space accounting.
In adition, if the unwritten extent cache is not shrunk during the
splitting, ext4_cache_extents() also conflicts with existing extents
when caching extents. In the future, we will add checks when caching
extents, which will trigger a warning. Therefore, Do not cache extents
that are being split.
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