In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix the pre-flush when appending to a file in writethrough mode
In netfs_perform_write(), when the file is marked NETFS_ICTX_WRITETHROUGH
or O_*SYNC or RWF_*SYNC was specified, write-through caching is performed
on a buffered file. When setting up for write-through, we flush any
conflicting writes in the region and wait for the write to complete,
failing if there's a write error to return.
The issue arises if we're writing at or above the EOF position because we
skip the flush and - more importantly - the wait. This becomes a problem
if there's a partial folio at the end of the file that is being written out
and we want to make a write to it too. Both the already-running write and
the write we start both want to clear the writeback mark, but whoever is
second causes a warning looking something like:
------------[ cut here ]------------
R=00000012: folio 11 is not under writeback
WARNING: CPU: 34 PID: 654 at fs/netfs/write_collect.c:105
...
CPU: 34 PID: 654 Comm: kworker/u386:27 Tainted: G S ...
...
Workqueue: events_unbound netfs_write_collection_worker
...
RIP: 0010:netfs_writeback_lookup_folio
Fix this by making the flush-and-wait unconditional. It will do nothing if
there are no folios in the pagecache and will return quickly if there are
no folios in the region specified.
Further, move the WBC attachment above the flush call as the flush is going
to attach a WBC and detach it again if it is not present - and since we
need one anyway we might as well share it.
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 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