In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ceph: fix num_ops off-by-one when crypto allocation fails
move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() may fail if the file is encrypted, the
dirty folio is not the first in the batch, and it fails to allocate a
bounce buffer to hold the ciphertext. When that happens,
ceph_process_folio_batch() simply redirties the folio and flushes the
current batch -- it can retry that folio in a future batch.
However, if this failed folio is not contiguous with the last folio that
did make it into the batch, then ceph_process_folio_batch() has already
incremented ceph_wbc->num_ops; because it doesn't follow through and
add the discontiguous folio to the array, ceph_submit_write() -- which
expects that ceph_wbc->num_ops accurately reflects the number of
contiguous ranges (and therefore the required number of "write extent"
ops) in the writeback -- will panic the kernel:
BUG_ON(ceph_wbc->op_idx + 1 != req->r_num_ops);
This issue can be reproduced on affected kernels by writing to
fscrypt-enabled CephFS file(s) with a 4KiB-written/4KiB-skipped/repeat
pattern (total filesize should not matter) and gradually increasing the
system's memory pressure until a bounce buffer allocation fails.
Fix this crash by decrementing ceph_wbc->num_ops back to the correct
value when move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() fails, but the folio already
started counting a new (i.e. still-empty) extent.
The defect corrected by this patch has existed since 2022 (see first
Fixes:), but another bug blocked multi-folio encrypted writeback until
recently (see second Fixes:). The second commit made it into 6.18.16,
6.19.6, and 7.0-rc1, unmasking the panic in those versions. This patch
therefore fixes a regression (panic) introduced by cac190c7674f.
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 2026-10-17). 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: 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.
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