In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext2: reject inodes with zero i_nlink and valid mode in ext2_iget()
ext2_iget() already rejects inodes with i_nlink == 0 when i_mode is
zero or i_dtime is set, treating them as deleted. However, the case of
i_nlink == 0 with a non-zero mode and zero dtime slips through. Since
ext2 has no orphan list, such a combination can only result from
filesystem corruption - a legitimate inode deletion always sets either
i_dtime or clears i_mode before freeing the inode.
A crafted image can exploit this gap to present such an inode to the
VFS, which then triggers WARN_ON inside drop_nlink() (fs/inode.c) via
ext2_unlink(), ext2_rename() and ext2_rmdir():
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 609 at fs/inode.c:336 drop_nlink+0xad/0xd0 fs/inode.c:336
CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 609 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted 6.12.77+ #1
Call Trace:
inode_dec_link_count include/linux/fs.h:2518 [inline]
ext2_unlink+0x26c/0x300 fs/ext2/namei.c:295
vfs_unlink+0x2fc/0x9b0 fs/namei.c:4477
do_unlinkat+0x53e/0x730 fs/namei.c:4541
__x64_sys_unlink+0xc6/0x110 fs/namei.c:4587
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x220 arch/x86/entry/common.c:78
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 646 at fs/inode.c:336 drop_nlink+0xad/0xd0 fs/inode.c:336
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 646 Comm: syz.0.17 Not tainted 6.12.77+ #1
Call Trace:
inode_dec_link_count include/linux/fs.h:2518 [inline]
ext2_rename+0x35e/0x850 fs/ext2/namei.c:374
vfs_rename+0xf2f/0x2060 fs/namei.c:5021
do_renameat2+0xbe2/0xd50 fs/namei.c:5178
__x64_sys_rename+0x7e/0xa0 fs/namei.c:5223
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x220 arch/x86/entry/common.c:78
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 634 at fs/inode.c:336 drop_nlink+0xad/0xd0 fs/inode.c:336
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 634 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted 6.12.77+ #1
Call Trace:
inode_dec_link_count include/linux/fs.h:2518 [inline]
ext2_rmdir+0xca/0x110 fs/ext2/namei.c:311
vfs_rmdir+0x204/0x690 fs/namei.c:4348
do_rmdir+0x372/0x3e0 fs/namei.c:4407
__x64_sys_unlinkat+0xf0/0x130 fs/namei.c:4577
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x220 arch/x86/entry/common.c:78
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
Extend the existing i_nlink == 0 check to also catch this case,
reporting the corruption via ext2_error() and returning -EFSCORRUPTED.
This rejects the inode at load time and prevents it from reaching any
of the namei.c paths.
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller.
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. 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