CVE-2026-89493

HIGHPre-NVD 8.88.8
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 8.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-09-11. A secondary CVSS source baseline 8.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 4 sources updated this week
8.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.7%CVSS: 8.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ocfs2: validate rl_used against rl_count in refcount block validator

ocfs2_find_refcount_rec_in_rl() walks the on-disk refcount record array with:

for (; i < le16_to_cpu(rb->rf_records.rl_used); i++) { rec = &rb->rf_records.rl_recs[i]; ...

rl_recs[] lives in a single metadata block (4096 bytes on the common configuration), so its real capacity is fixed by ocfs2_refcount_recs_per_rb(sb) (247 records for a 4K block with the 16-byte ocfs2_refcount_rec). rl_used and rl_count are both read directly off disk by ocfs2_validate_refcount_block() and are never checked against that capacity, nor against each other, before any refcount/reflink/CoW operation walks the array.

A crafted (or corrupted) refcount block with rl_used == 0xffff makes the loop above walk far past the end of the block, dereferencing rl_recs[i] for i up to 65534. The resulting index is then handed to the sibling ocfs2_insert_refcount_rec(), whose insert-shift does:

if (index < le16_to_cpu(rf_list->rl_used)) memmove(&rf_list->rl_recs[index + 1], &rf_list->rl_recs[index], (le16_to_cpu(rf_list->rl_used) - index) * sizeof(struct ocfs2_refcount_rec));

i.e. a memmove() of up to (0xffff - index) * 16 bytes (~1 MiB) from an offset already past the block. This is reachable from an ordinary reflink (FICLONE) against a crafted/corrupted ocfs2 image: attaching an extent whose cpos sorts past every real record in the leaf forces the lookup to run off the end instead of returning early on a match. The attacker model is local: CAP_SYS_ADMIN mounting a crafted or corrupted ocfs2 image, or a raw write to the block device backing an already-mounted ocfs2 filesystem.

ocfs2_validate_refcount_block() already validates the block's ECC, signature, rf_blkno and rf_fs_generation, but never rl_count/rl_used against the block's actual on-disk capacity. This is the same class of gap that ocfs2_validate_extent_block() (fs/ocfs2/alloc.c) already closes for the sibling extent-list header, which checks both the record capacity and the "used" bound before any code walks h_list.l_recs[]:

if (le16_to_cpu(eb->h_list.l_count) != ocfs2_extent_recs_per_eb(sb)) { rc = ocfs2_error(...); goto bail; }

if (le16_to_cpu(eb->h_list.l_next_free_rec) > le16_to_cpu(eb->h_list.l_count)) { rc = ocfs2_error(...); goto bail; }

Add the equivalent pair of checks to ocfs2_validate_refcount_block(): reject a refcount block whose rl_count does not match the fixed per-block capacity returned by ocfs2_refcount_recs_per_rb(), and reject rl_used > rl_count. Both checks are skipped when OCFS2_REFCOUNT_TREE_FL is set, because in that case the same union bytes hold an ocfs2_extent_list (rf_list), not the refcount record list (rf_records) -- that layout is already validated separately by ocfs2_validate_extent_block() when the referenced extent block is read. This mirrors the existing "!(rb->rf_flags & OCFS2_REFCOUNT_TREE_FL)" guard used elsewhere in this file (e.g. ocfs2_get_refcount_rec()) to decide whether rf_records or rf_list is the live member of the union.

With this in place, a forged rl_used/rl_count is caught at block validation time (ocfs2_error()), consistent with every other corruption check in this function, instead of driving an out-of-bounds read in ocfs2_find_refcount_rec_in_rl() and a subsequent out-of-bounds memmove() in ocfs2_insert_refcount_rec().

Verified against a crafted image on a v6.19 KASAN (KASAN_GENERIC) build: replaying the same reflink (FICLONE) reliably hit a KASAN report in __ocfs2_increase_refcount()/ocfs2_insert_refcount_rec() before this patch, and triggers no report once ocfs2_validate_refcount_block() rejects the forged rl_used/rl_count.

CVSS v3
8.8
EG Score
8.8HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
40
EG Risk 40/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity88% × 45%
The EG Score, 8.8 of 10.
Exploitation0.7% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
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.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.7%
EPSS %ILE
49th
KEV
Not listed

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

Published

September 11, 2026

Last Modified

September 14, 2026

Advisory Details (4)

Auto-updated Sep 13, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

ocfs2: validate rl_used against rl_count in refcount block validator - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4ca62df6bc0708947b48da3f6a712ecb8e73929c
Web page

ocfs2: validate rl_used against rl_count in refcount block validator - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/04ead708e13ddcb9c39319cbe02a18cef99cb823
Web page

ocfs2: validate rl_used against rl_count in refcount block validator - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0761d2c9494424469a0d30a9da3496ca010b0b2d
Web page

ocfs2: validate rl_used against rl_count in refcount block validator - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/af56e90cb546cb0c47bef059335365283f61d6a4

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-89493(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(4 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (360 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
linux-6.126.12.100-1~deb12u1, 6.12.101-1~deb12u1, 6.12.107-1~deb12u1
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1~deb12u1: fixed in 6.12.111-1~deb12u1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.12.96-1 (35 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1: fixed in 6.12.111-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (179 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.6-1: fixed in 7.2.6-1
—

All Vendor Advisories

(1)

Every vendor that published an advisory referencing this CVE — pulled from our cve_vendor_advisories aggregation. Click any row for the vendor's original advisory page.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 35× in last 7d / 166× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 100 of 179 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. None are among the latest 100 rows. The 79 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 04:55 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-13 04:55 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-13 04:55 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  5. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  6. 2026-10-12 14:48 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 22:10 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 22:10 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-11 22:10 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  10. 2026-10-11 19:15 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 16:32 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  13. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-11 09:48 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-10-11 09:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  16. 2026-10-10 20:18 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-10 20:18 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-10 20:18 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  19. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  20. 2026-10-10 07:58 UTCEG score recompute
  21. 2026-10-10 07:58 UTCVendor advisory
  22. 2026-10-10 07:58 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  23. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  24. 2026-10-09 19:17 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-09 19:17 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
Show 75 more
  1. 2026-10-08 23:26 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-08 23:26 UTCVendor advisory
  3. 2026-10-08 23:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  4. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  5. 2026-10-08 08:30 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-08 08:30 UTCVendor advisory
  7. 2026-10-08 08:30 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  8. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  9. 2026-10-07 20:10 UTCVendor advisory
  10. 2026-10-07 20:10 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  11. 2026-10-07 07:50 UTCVendor advisory
  12. 2026-10-07 07:50 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  13. 2026-10-06 19:30 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-06 19:30 UTCVendor advisory
  15. 2026-10-06 19:30 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  16. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  17. 2026-10-06 07:10 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-06 07:10 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  19. 2026-10-05 18:08 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-05 18:08 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-05 18:08 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  22. 2026-10-05 17:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 49th percentile
  23. 2026-10-05 05:48 UTCEG score recompute
  24. 2026-10-05 05:48 UTCVendor advisory
  25. 2026-10-05 05:48 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  26. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  27. 2026-10-04 17:27 UTCVendor advisory
  28. 2026-10-04 17:27 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  29. 2026-10-04 04:44 UTCVendor advisory
  30. 2026-10-04 04:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  31. 2026-10-03 16:24 UTCEG score recompute
  32. 2026-10-03 16:24 UTCVendor advisory
  33. 2026-10-03 16:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  34. 2026-10-03 04:04 UTCEG score recompute
  35. 2026-10-03 04:04 UTCVendor advisory
  36. 2026-10-03 04:04 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  37. 2026-10-02 15:44 UTCVendor advisory
  38. 2026-10-02 15:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  39. 2026-10-02 03:24 UTCEG score recompute
  40. 2026-10-02 03:24 UTCVendor advisory
  41. 2026-10-02 03:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  42. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  43. 2026-10-01 14:47 UTCVendor advisory
  44. 2026-10-01 14:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  45. 2026-10-01 02:27 UTCEG score recompute
  46. 2026-10-01 02:27 UTCVendor advisory
  47. 2026-10-01 02:27 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  48. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  49. 2026-09-30 14:08 UTCVendor advisory
  50. 2026-09-30 14:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  51. 2026-09-30 01:45 UTCEG score recompute
  52. 2026-09-30 01:45 UTCVendor advisory
  53. 2026-09-30 01:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  54. 2026-09-29 11:26 UTCVendor advisory
  55. 2026-09-29 11:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  56. 2026-09-28 23:07 UTCEG score recompute
  57. 2026-09-28 23:07 UTCVendor advisory
  58. 2026-09-28 23:07 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  59. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  60. 2026-09-28 10:46 UTCVendor advisory
  61. 2026-09-28 10:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  62. 2026-09-27 22:26 UTCEG score recompute
  63. 2026-09-27 22:26 UTCVendor advisory
  64. 2026-09-27 22:26 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  65. 2026-09-27 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  66. 2026-09-27 10:06 UTCVendor advisory
  67. 2026-09-27 10:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  68. 2026-09-26 21:45 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-09-26 21:45 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-09-26 21:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  71. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.7% · 50th percentile
  72. 2026-09-26 09:25 UTCEG score recompute
  73. 2026-09-26 09:25 UTCVendor advisory
  74. 2026-09-26 09:25 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-8g63-4gj4-crp5 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.8
  75. 2026-09-25 21:05 UTCVendor advisory

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-89493?
CVE-2026-89493 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on September 11, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ocfs2: validate rlused against rlcount in refcount block validator ocfs2findrefcountrecin_rl() walks the on-disk refcount record array with: for (; i < le16tocpu(rb->rfrecords.rlused); i++) { rec = &rb->rfrecords.rlrecs[i]; ...…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-89493 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-89493 was published on September 11, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of September 14, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-89493 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-89493 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.7% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (49th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-89493?
CVE-2026-89493 has a CVSS base score of 8.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-89493?
A fix for CVE-2026-89493 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-89493 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-89493

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-89493?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.