In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
NFS: Charge unstable writes by request size, not folio size
nfs_folio_mark_unstable() and nfs_folio_clear_commit() charge and
uncharge NR_WRITEBACK/WB_WRITEBACK by folio_nr_pages(folio) once per
*request* added to or removed from a commit list. This is correct only
when a folio has a single associated request. When pg_test splits a
folio into N sub-folio requests (e.g. pNFS flexfiles striping with a
stripe unit smaller than the folio size, or plain wsize-limited
splitting), each of the N requests independently charges the whole
folio's page count, inflating the accounting by a factor of N per
folio. With large folios and small stripe units this reaches multiple
orders of magnitude: a 2 MiB folio split into 512 4 KiB requests can
charge up to 512x its real size, pushing global dirty+writeback
accounting past the system's dirty threshold and forcing every
buffered writer on the host into the hard-throttle path, including
unrelated in-kernel NFS server threads sharing the box.
Charge each request only for the pages it actually covers.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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