In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: lzo: reject inline extents without valid headers
[BUG]
For a crafted btrfs image, the following KASAN can be triggered when
reading an inline lzo compressed file extent:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in lzo_decompress+0x57d/0x700
Read of size 4 at addr ffff888006f2e644 by task btrfs_lzo_inlin/77
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x70
print_report+0xd1/0x610
kasan_report+0xe0/0x110
__asan_report_load_n_noabort+0x13/0x20
lzo_decompress+0x57d/0x700
btrfs_decompress+0x140/0x1c0
uncompress_inline+0x147/0x1b0
btrfs_get_extent+0xb23/0x10a0
btrfs_do_readpage.constprop.0+0x538/0x1ac0
btrfs_readahead+0x32f/0x5f0
read_pages+0x16f/0x850
page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x296/0x490
do_page_cache_ra+0xd9/0x130
page_cache_sync_ra+0x3ee/0x6f0
filemap_get_pages+0x306/0x15c0
filemap_read+0x329/0xd00
btrfs_file_read_iter+0x1f8/0x2b0
vfs_read+0x4ef/0x720
ksys_read+0xf8/0x1d0
__x64_sys_read+0x71/0xb0
x64_sys_call+0x1ab0/0x1b70
do_syscall_64+0x61/0x470
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
[CAUSE]
For an inline lzo compressed file extent, there should always be one lzo
header, recording the total length of the compressed data, followed by
one segment header, recording the compressed lzo payload.
But if a crafted inline lzo compressed file extent contains only an lzo
header, without the segment header or payload, lzo_decompress() will
still try to read the segment header, causing a read beyond the item
boundary.
Furthermore if the inline lzo compressed file extent is the first item
of the leaf, it will be at the extent buffer boundary. The above
out-of-boundary read will go beyond the extent buffer boundary,
triggering the above KASAN report.
[FIX]
Validate the total length of the inlined lzo compressed file extent, to
make sure there is at least one LZO header and one segment header, and a
non-zero payload.
[ Rework the commit message to remove slop ]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-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 2026-10-29). 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