In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: fix partial-write detection in nfsd_direct_write
nfsd_direct_write() walks a list of write segments and, after each
vfs_iocb_iter_write(), tries to detect a short write so the loop can
stop before placing the next segment at a wrong file offset:
host_err = vfs_iocb_iter_write(file, kiocb, &segments[i].iter);
if (host_err < 0)
return host_err;
*cnt += host_err;
if (host_err < segments[i].iter.count)
break; /* partial write */
vfs_iocb_iter_write() runs the iter through ->write_iter(), which
advances the iter by the number of bytes written. By the time the
check runs, segments[i].iter.count is the residual, not the original
request length:
before write_iter: iter.count == original_len
after write_iter: iter.count == original_len - host_err
The condition then reduces to host_err < original_len - host_err, so
the break fires only when less than half of the segment was written.
Any short write completing between 50% and 99% of the segment slips
through; the loop advances to the next segment with kiocb->ki_pos
only bumped by the short amount, writing the next segment's payload
at the wrong offset and over-reporting *cnt to the NFS client.
Snapshot the segment's byte count before the write and compare
host_err against that snapshot so any short write breaks the loop.
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