In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: fix defrag path triggering jbd2 ASSERT
code path:
ocfs2_ioctl_move_extents
ocfs2_move_extents
ocfs2_defrag_extent
__ocfs2_move_extent
+ ocfs2_journal_access_di
+ ocfs2_split_extent //sub-paths call jbd2_journal_restart
+ ocfs2_journal_dirty //crash by jbs2 ASSERT
crash stacks:
PID: 11297 TASK: ffff974a676dcd00 CPU: 67 COMMAND: "defragfs.ocfs2"
#0 [ffffb25d8dad3900] machine_kexec at ffffffff8386fe01
#1 [ffffb25d8dad3958] __crash_kexec at ffffffff8395959d
#2 [ffffb25d8dad3a20] crash_kexec at ffffffff8395a45d
#3 [ffffb25d8dad3a38] oops_end at ffffffff83836d3f
#4 [ffffb25d8dad3a58] do_trap at ffffffff83833205
#5 [ffffb25d8dad3aa0] do_invalid_op at ffffffff83833aa6
#6 [ffffb25d8dad3ac0] invalid_op at ffffffff84200d18
[exception RIP: jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata+0x2ba]
RIP: ffffffffc09ca54a RSP: ffffb25d8dad3b70 RFLAGS: 00010207
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9706eedc5248 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffff97337029ea28 RDI: ffff9706eedc5250
RBP: ffff9703c3520200 R8: 000000000f46b0b2 R9: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 00000001000000fe R12: ffff97337029ea28
R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffff9703de59bf60 R15: ffff9706eedc5250
ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018
#7 [ffffb25d8dad3ba8] ocfs2_journal_dirty at ffffffffc137fb95 [ocfs2]
#8 [ffffb25d8dad3be8] __ocfs2_move_extent at ffffffffc139a950 [ocfs2]
#9 [ffffb25d8dad3c80] ocfs2_defrag_extent at ffffffffc139b2d2 [ocfs2]
Analysis
This bug has the same root cause of 'commit 7f27ec978b0e ("ocfs2: call
ocfs2_journal_access_di() before ocfs2_journal_dirty() in
ocfs2_write_end_nolock()")'. For this bug, jbd2_journal_restart() is
called by ocfs2_split_extent() during defragmenting.
How to fix
For ocfs2_split_extent() can handle journal operations totally by itself.
Caller doesn't need to call journal access/dirty pair, and caller only
needs to call journal start/stop pair. The fix method is to remove
journal access/dirty from __ocfs2_move_extent().
The discussion for this patch:
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2023-February/000647.html
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
- 0.1% 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