In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: reject dinodes with non-canonical i_mode type
Patch series "ocfs2: harden inode validators against forged metadata", v2.
This series adds three structural checks to OCFS2 dinode validation so
malformed on-disk fields are rejected before ocfs2_populate_inode() copies
them into the in-core inode.
The checks cover:
- i_mode values whose type bits do not name a canonical POSIX file
type;
- non-device dinodes whose id1.dev1.i_rdev field is non-zero; and
- non-inline dinodes that claim non-zero i_size while i_clusters is
zero, covering directories unconditionally and regular files on
non-sparse volumes.
The normal read path reports these through ocfs2_error(), matching the
existing suballoc-slot, inline-data, chain-list, and refcount checks. The
online filecheck path uses the same structural predicates but keeps its
own reporting contract, returning OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO instead
of calling ocfs2_error().
This patch (of 3):
ocfs2_validate_inode_block() currently accepts any non-zero i_mode value.
ocfs2_populate_inode() then copies that mode verbatim into inode->i_mode
and dispatches on i_mode & S_IFMT to the file/dir/symlink/special_file
iops; an unrecognised type falls through to ocfs2_special_file_iops and
init_special_inode().
Reject dinodes whose type bits do not name one of the seven canonical
POSIX file types. Use fs_umode_to_ftype(), the same generic file-type
conversion helper OCFS2 already uses for directory entries, so the
accepted inode type set matches the kernel file-type vocabulary instead of
open-coding a local switch.
Apply the same structural check to the online filecheck read path.
filecheck keeps its own error namespace, so it reports malformed i_mode
through the filecheck logger and OCFS2_FILECHECK_ERR_INVALIDINO instead of
calling ocfs2_error(), but it must not allow a malformed dinode to proceed
into ocfs2_populate_inode().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% 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
- 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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