In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: reject CLEAN_SEGMENTS ioctl with out-of-range segment numbers
Syzbot reported a hung task in nilfs_transaction_begin() where multiple
tasks performing chmod() on a nilfs2 mount blocked for over 143 seconds
waiting to acquire ns_segctor_sem for read:
INFO: task syz.0.17:5918 blocked for more than 143 seconds.
Call Trace:
schedule+0x164/0x360
rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x6d9/0x940
down_read+0x99/0x2e0
nilfs_transaction_begin+0x364/0x710 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:221
nilfs_setattr+0x124/0x2c0 fs/nilfs2/inode.c:921
notify_change+0xc1a/0xf40
chmod_common+0x273/0x4a0
do_fchmodat+0x12d/0x230
The writer holding ns_segctor_sem was a concurrent
NILFS_IOCTL_CLEAN_SEGMENTS caller, stuck inside printk while emitting
per-element warnings from nilfs_sufile_updatev():
__nilfs_msg+0x373/0x450 fs/nilfs2/super.c:78
nilfs_sufile_updatev+0x21c/0x6d0 fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:186
nilfs_sufile_freev fs/nilfs2/sufile.h:93 [inline]
nilfs_free_segments fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1140 [inline]
nilfs_segctor_collect_blocks fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1261 [inline]
nilfs_segctor_do_construct+0x1f55/0x76c0
nilfs_clean_segments+0x3bd/0xa50
nilfs_ioctl_clean_segments fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:922 [inline]
nilfs_ioctl+0x261f/0x2780
The root cause is that user-supplied segment numbers are not validated
before nilfs_clean_segments() begins doing work; the range check on
each segnum is performed deep inside the call chain by
nilfs_sufile_updatev(), which emits a nilfs_warn() per invalid entry
while still holding the segctor lock and the sufile mi_sem. Under load
(repeated invocations across multiple mounts saturating the global
printk path), the cumulative printk latency keeps ns_segctor_sem held
long enough to trip the hung_task watchdog, blocking concurrent
operations such as chmod() that need ns_segctor_sem for read.
Fix by validating the contents of kbufs[4] in nilfs_clean_segments()
immediately after acquiring ns_segctor_sem via nilfs_transaction_lock().
Holding ns_segctor_sem serializes the check against
nilfs_ioctl_resize(), which can modify ns_nsegments, so the validation
uses a consistent value. Out-of-range segment numbers are rejected
with -EINVAL before any segment-cleaning work begins, so the bad
entries never reach the per-element diagnostic path inside
nilfs_sufile_updatev().
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