In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfs: fix exchange-range reflink flag clearing issue with INO1_WRITTEN
When exchanging two full-file ranges, xmi_can_exchange_reflink_flags()
can move the reflink inode flag from the file that currently has it to
the other file, as long as exactly one side is marked. This assumes
that the file contents, and therefore all shared extents, are exchanged.
That assumption is not true when XFS_EXCHMAPS_INO1_WRITTEN is set.
xfs_exchmaps_can_skip_mapping() can skip hole and unwritten mappings
from file1, so an exchange can complete without moving every mapping
that the earlier flag-swap decision accounted for. In that case the
post-operation cleanup can clear the reflink flag from an inode that
still owns shared written extents. Later writes then take the
non-reflink write path and may update blocks that should still have
been protected by CoW, which shows up as data corruption between
reflink-related files.
Fix this by disabling the reflink flag exchange whenever
XFS_EXCHMAPS_INO1_WRITTEN is requested. The contents exchange can still
proceed; the conservative outcome is that both inodes keep the reflink
flag. The regular reflink flag cleanup path can drop the extra flag
later once the inode no longer has shared extents.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-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 (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