In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix zeropoint update where i_size > remote_i_size
Fix the update of the zero point[*] by netfs_release_folio() when there is
uncommitted data in the pagecache beyond the folio being released but the
on-server EOF is in this folio (ie. i_size > remote_i_size). The update
needs to limit zero_point to remote_i_size, not i_size as i_size is a local
phenomenon reflecting updates made locally to the pagecache, not stuff
written to the server. remote_i_size tracks the server's i_size.
[*] The zero point is the file position from which we can assume that the
server will just return zeros, so we can avoid generating reads.
Note that netfs_invalidate_folio() probably doesn't need fixing as
zero_point should be updated by setattr after truncation or fallocate.
Found with:
fsx -q -N 1000000 -p 10000 -o 128000 -l 600000 \
/xfstest.test/junk --replay-ops=junk.fsxops
using the following as junk.fsxops:
truncate 0x0 0x1bbae 0x82864
write 0x3ef2e 0xf9c8 0x1bbae
write 0x67e05 0xcb5a 0x4e8f6
mapread 0x57781 0x85b6 0x7495f
copy_range 0x5d3d 0x10329 0x54fac 0x7495f
write 0x64710 0x1c2b 0x7495f
mapread 0x64000 0x1000 0x7495f
on cifs with the default cache option.
It shows read-gaps on folio 0x64 failing with a short read (ie. it hits
EOF) if the FMODE_READ check is commented out in netfs_perform_write():
if (//(file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) ||
netfs_is_cache_enabled(ctx)) {
and no fscache. This was initially found with the generic/522 xfstest.
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 2026-10-24). 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