In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: fix bug_on in __es_tree_search
Hulk Robot reported a BUG_ON:
==================================================================
kernel BUG at fs/ext4/extents_status.c:199!
[...]
RIP: 0010:ext4_es_end fs/ext4/extents_status.c:199 [inline]
RIP: 0010:__es_tree_search+0x1e0/0x260 fs/ext4/extents_status.c:217
[...]
Call Trace:
ext4_es_cache_extent+0x109/0x340 fs/ext4/extents_status.c:766
ext4_cache_extents+0x239/0x2e0 fs/ext4/extents.c:561
ext4_find_extent+0x6b7/0xa20 fs/ext4/extents.c:964
ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x16b/0x4b70 fs/ext4/extents.c:4384
ext4_map_blocks+0xe26/0x19f0 fs/ext4/inode.c:567
ext4_getblk+0x320/0x4c0 fs/ext4/inode.c:980
ext4_bread+0x2d/0x170 fs/ext4/inode.c:1031
ext4_quota_read+0x248/0x320 fs/ext4/super.c:6257
v2_read_header+0x78/0x110 fs/quota/quota_v2.c:63
v2_check_quota_file+0x76/0x230 fs/quota/quota_v2.c:82
vfs_load_quota_inode+0x5d1/0x1530 fs/quota/dquot.c:2368
dquot_enable+0x28a/0x330 fs/quota/dquot.c:2490
ext4_quota_enable fs/ext4/super.c:6137 [inline]
ext4_enable_quotas+0x5d7/0x960 fs/ext4/super.c:6163
ext4_fill_super+0xa7c9/0xdc00 fs/ext4/super.c:4754
mount_bdev+0x2e9/0x3b0 fs/super.c:1158
mount_fs+0x4b/0x1e4 fs/super.c:1261
[...]
==================================================================
Above issue may happen as follows:
-------------------------------------
ext4_fill_super
ext4_enable_quotas
ext4_quota_enable
ext4_iget
__ext4_iget
ext4_ext_check_inode
ext4_ext_check
__ext4_ext_check
ext4_valid_extent_entries
Check for overlapping extents does't take effect
dquot_enable
vfs_load_quota_inode
v2_check_quota_file
v2_read_header
ext4_quota_read
ext4_bread
ext4_getblk
ext4_map_blocks
ext4_ext_map_blocks
ext4_find_extent
ext4_cache_extents
ext4_es_cache_extent
ext4_es_cache_extent
__es_tree_search
ext4_es_end
BUG_ON(es->es_lblk + es->es_len < es->es_lblk)
The error ext4 extents is as follows:
0af3 0300 0400 0000 00000000 extent_header
00000000 0100 0000 12000000 extent1
00000000 0100 0000 18000000 extent2
02000000 0400 0000 14000000 extent3
In the ext4_valid_extent_entries function,
if prev is 0, no error is returned even if lblock<=prev.
This was intended to skip the check on the first extent, but
in the error image above, prev=0+1-1=0 when checking the second extent,
so even though lblock<=prev, the function does not return an error.
As a result, bug_ON occurs in __es_tree_search and the system panics.
To solve this problem, we only need to check that:
- The lblock of the first extent is not less than 0.
- The lblock of the next extent is not less than
the next block of the previous extent.
The same applies to extent_idx.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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