In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix netfs_invalidate_folio() to clear dirty bit if all changes gone
If a streaming write is made, this will leave the relevant modified folio
in a not-uptodate, but dirty state with a netfs_folio struct hung off of
folio->private indicating the dirty range. Subsequently truncating the
file such that the dirty data in the folio is removed, but the first part
of the folio theoretically remains will cause the netfs_folio struct to be
discarded... but will leave the dirty flag set.
If the folio is then read via mmap(), netfs_read_folio() will see that the
page is dirty and jump to netfs_read_gaps() to fill in the missing bits.
netfs_read_gaps(), however, expects there to be a netfs_folio struct
present and can oops because truncate removed it.
Fix this by calling folio_cancel_dirty() in netfs_invalidate_folio() in the
event that all the dirty data in the folio is erased (as nfs does).
Also add some tracepoints to log modifications to a dirty page.
This can be reproduced with something like:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/xfstest.test/foo bs=1M count=1
umount /xfstest.test
mount /xfstest.test
xfs_io -c "w 0xbbbf 0xf96c" \
-c "truncate 0xbbbf" \
-c "mmap -r 0xb000 0x11000" \
-c "mr 0xb000 0x11000" \
/xfstest.test/foo
with fscaching disabled (otherwise streaming writes are suppressed) and a
change to netfs_perform_write() to disallow streaming writes if the fd is
open O_RDWR:
if (//(file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) || <--- comment this out
netfs_is_cache_enabled(ctx)) {
It should be reproducible even without this change, but if prevents the
above trivial xfs_io command from reproducing it.
Note that the initial dd is important: the file must start out sufficiently
large that the zero-point logic doesn't just clear the gaps because it
knows there's nothing in the file to read yet. Unmounting and mounting is
needed to clear the pagecache (there are other ways to do that that may
also work).
This was initially reproduced with the generic/522 xfstest on some patches
that remove the FMODE_READ restriction.
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 2026-10-24). 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