In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: split transactions in dio completion to avoid credit exhaustion
During ocfs2 dio operations, JBD2 may report warnings via following
call trace:
ocfs2_dio_end_io_write
ocfs2_mark_extent_written
ocfs2_change_extent_flag
ocfs2_split_extent
ocfs2_try_to_merge_extent
ocfs2_extend_rotate_transaction
ocfs2_extend_trans
jbd2__journal_restart
start_this_handle
output: JBD2: kworker/6:2 wants too many credits credits:5450 rsv_credits:0 max:5449
To prevent exceeding the credits limit, modify ocfs2_dio_end_io_write() to
handle extents in a batch of transaction.
Additionally, relocate ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan(). The orphan inode
should only be removed from the orphan list after the extent tree update
is complete. This ensures that if a crash occurs in the middle of extent
tree updates, we won't leave stale blocks beyond EOF.
This patch also changes the logic for updating the inode size and removing
orphan, making it similar to ext4_dio_write_end_io(). Both operations are
performed only when everything looks good.
Finally, thanks to Jans and Joseph for providing the bug fix prototype and
suggestions.
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 2026-11-06). 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