In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: block range must be validated before use in ext4_mb_clear_bb()
Block range to free is validated in ext4_free_blocks() using
ext4_inode_block_valid() and then it's passed to ext4_mb_clear_bb().
However in some situations on bigalloc file system the range might be
adjusted after the validation in ext4_free_blocks() which can lead to
troubles on corrupted file systems such as one found by syzkaller that
resulted in the following BUG
kernel BUG at fs/ext4/ext4.h:3319!
PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
CPU: 28 PID: 4243 Comm: repro Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.19.0-rc6+ #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.15.0-1.fc35 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:ext4_free_blocks+0x95e/0xa90
Call Trace:
? lock_timer_base+0x61/0x80
? __es_remove_extent+0x5a/0x760
? __mod_timer+0x256/0x380
? ext4_ind_truncate_ensure_credits+0x90/0x220
ext4_clear_blocks+0x107/0x1b0
ext4_free_data+0x15b/0x170
ext4_ind_truncate+0x214/0x2c0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x15/0x30
? ext4_discard_preallocations+0x15a/0x410
? ext4_journal_check_start+0xe/0x90
? __ext4_journal_start_sb+0x2f/0x110
ext4_truncate+0x1b5/0x460
? __ext4_journal_start_sb+0x2f/0x110
ext4_evict_inode+0x2b4/0x6f0
evict+0xd0/0x1d0
ext4_enable_quotas+0x11f/0x1f0
ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x3de/0x430
? proc_create_seq_private+0x43/0x50
ext4_fill_super+0x295f/0x3ae0
? snprintf+0x39/0x40
? sget_fc+0x19c/0x330
? ext4_reconfigure+0x850/0x850
get_tree_bdev+0x16d/0x260
vfs_get_tree+0x25/0xb0
path_mount+0x431/0xa70
__x64_sys_mount+0xe2/0x120
do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x80
? do_user_addr_fault+0x1e2/0x670
? exc_page_fault+0x70/0x170
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
RIP: 0033:0x7fdf4e512ace
Fix it by making sure that the block range is properly validated before
used every time it changes in ext4_free_blocks() or ext4_mb_clear_bb().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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