In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: fix mb_cache_entry's e_refcnt leak in ext4_xattr_block_cache_find()
Syzbot reports a warning as follows:
============================================
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5075 at fs/mbcache.c:419 mb_cache_destroy+0x224/0x290
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 5075 Comm: syz-executor199 Not tainted 6.9.0-rc6-gb947cc5bf6d7
RIP: 0010:mb_cache_destroy+0x224/0x290 fs/mbcache.c:419
Call Trace:
ext4_put_super+0x6d4/0xcd0 fs/ext4/super.c:1375
generic_shutdown_super+0x136/0x2d0 fs/super.c:641
kill_block_super+0x44/0x90 fs/super.c:1675
ext4_kill_sb+0x68/0xa0 fs/ext4/super.c:7327
[...]
============================================
This is because when finding an entry in ext4_xattr_block_cache_find(), if
ext4_sb_bread() returns -ENOMEM, the ce's e_refcnt, which has already grown
in the __entry_find(), won't be put away, and eventually trigger the above
issue in mb_cache_destroy() due to reference count leakage.
So call mb_cache_entry_put() on the -ENOMEM error branch as a quick fix.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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