In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: fix slab-out-of-bounds in nilfs_direct_propagate after truncation
Shuangpeng Bai reported that KASAN detected a slab-out-of-bounds error
in nilfs_direct_propagate() during testing.
Analysis revealed that after truncating a file, a node block immediately
below the B-tree root was not deleted. Instead, it remained in the B-tree
node cache in a dirty state. The log writer subsequently detected this
block and incorrectly invoked nilfs_direct_propagate() on it, which is
designed to handle only data blocks in direct mapping.
B-tree nodes in the cache are managed by virtual block numbers, and their
logical keys typically exceed the range expected by direct mapping.
Consequently, processing such a node as a direct mapping entry triggers
a slab-out-of-bounds access.
The root cause is that when a B-tree mapping collapses into a direct
mapping during truncation, an intermediate node block pointed to by the
root node is left behind as garbage instead of being explicitly deleted.
This resolves the issue by adding a nilfs_btree_discard() operation
to delete the remaining intermediate node block during the conversion.
A 'deform' flag is added to the bop_delete interface to explicitly signal
that the deletion is part of a mapping transformation. This allows the
B-tree mapping implementation to perform the necessary cleanup and
discarding of the residual node structure that would be otherwise be left
orphaned after the transition.
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