In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: fix racy may inline data check in dio write
syzbot reports that the following warning from ext4_iomap_begin()
triggers as of the commit referenced below:
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ext4_has_inline_data(inode)))
return -ERANGE;
This occurs during a dio write, which is never expected to encounter
an inode with inline data. To enforce this behavior,
ext4_dio_write_iter() checks the current inline state of the inode
and clears the MAY_INLINE_DATA state flag to either fall back to
buffered writes, or enforce that any other writers in progress on
the inode are not allowed to create inline data.
The problem is that the check for existing inline data and the state
flag can span a lock cycle. For example, if the ilock is originally
locked shared and subsequently upgraded to exclusive, another writer
may have reacquired the lock and created inline data before the dio
write task acquires the lock and proceeds.
The commit referenced below loosens the lock requirements to allow
some forms of unaligned dio writes to occur under shared lock, but
AFAICT the inline data check was technically already racy for any
dio write that would have involved a lock cycle. Regardless, lift
clearing of the state bit to the same lock critical section that
checks for preexisting inline data on the inode to close the race.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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