In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rbd: Reset positive result codes to zero in object map update path
In a reply message to an RBD request, a positive result code indicates
a data payload, which is not allowed for writes. While
rbd_osd_req_callback() already resets a positive result code for writes
to zero, rbd_object_map_callback() does not. This allows a corrupted
reply to an object map update to trigger the rbd_assert(*result < 0) in
__rbd_obj_handle_request(). This happens, because
rbd_object_map_callback() calls rbd_obj_handle_request() ->
__rbd_obj_handle_request() and passes this positive result code. From
__rbd_obj_handle_request(), rbd_obj_advance_write() is called, which
leaves the positive result code unchanged and returns true. Therefore,
the if(done && *result) branch is executed in __rbd_obj_handle_request()
and the assertion triggers.
This patch fixes the issue by adjusting the logic in the
rbd_object_map_callback() path. A positive result code for an object map
update is now reset to zero (similar to rbd_osd_req_callback()), and the
message is subsequently handled the same way as if the result code was
zero from the beginning. Additionally, a WARN_ON_ONCE() is added for
this case.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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