In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: fix listxattr handling when the buffer is full
[BUG]
If an OCFS2 inode has both inline and block-based xattrs, listxattr()
can return a size larger than the caller's buffer when the inline names
consume that buffer exactly.
kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:102!
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI
RIP: 0010:usercopy_abort+0xb7/0xd0 mm/usercopy.c:102
Call Trace:
__check_heap_object+0xe3/0x120 mm/slub.c:8243
check_heap_object mm/usercopy.c:196 [inline]
__check_object_size mm/usercopy.c:250 [inline]
__check_object_size+0x5c5/0x780 mm/usercopy.c:215
check_object_size include/linux/ucopysize.h:22 [inline]
check_copy_size include/linux/ucopysize.h:59 [inline]
copy_to_user include/linux/uaccess.h:219 [inline]
listxattr+0xb0/0x170 fs/xattr.c:926
filename_listxattr fs/xattr.c:958 [inline]
path_listxattrat+0x137/0x320 fs/xattr.c:988
__do_sys_listxattr fs/xattr.c:1001 [inline]
__se_sys_listxattr fs/xattr.c:998 [inline]
__x64_sys_listxattr+0x7f/0xd0 fs/xattr.c:998
...
[CAUSE]
Commit 936b8834366e ("ocfs2: Refactor xattr list and remove
ocfs2_xattr_handler().") replaced the old per-handler list accounting
with ocfs2_xattr_list_entry(), but it kept using size == 0 to detect
probe mode.
That assumption stops being true once ocfs2_listxattr() finishes the
inline-xattr pass. If the inline names fill the caller buffer exactly,
the block-xattr pass runs with a non-NULL buffer and a remaining size of
zero. ocfs2_xattr_list_entry() then skips the bounds check, keeps
counting block names, and returns a positive size larger than the
supplied buffer.
[FIX]
Detect probe mode by testing whether the destination buffer pointer is
NULL instead of whether the remaining size is zero.
That restores the pre-refactor behavior and matches the OCFS2 getxattr
helpers. Once the remaining buffer reaches zero while more names are
left, the block-xattr pass now returns -ERANGE instead of reporting a
size larger than the allocated list buffer.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-24). 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