In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: check dot and dotdot of dx_root before making dir indexed
Syzbot reports a issue as follows:
============================================
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffed11022e24fe
PGD 23ffee067 P4D 23ffee067 PUD 0
Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI
CPU: 0 PID: 5079 Comm: syz-executor306 Not tainted 6.10.0-rc5-g55027e689933 #0
Call Trace:
make_indexed_dir+0xdaf/0x13c0 fs/ext4/namei.c:2341
ext4_add_entry+0x222a/0x25d0 fs/ext4/namei.c:2451
ext4_rename fs/ext4/namei.c:3936 [inline]
ext4_rename2+0x26e5/0x4370 fs/ext4/namei.c:4214
[...]
============================================
The immediate cause of this problem is that there is only one valid dentry
for the block to be split during do_split, so split==0 results in out of
bounds accesses to the map triggering the issue.
do_split
unsigned split
dx_make_map
count = 1
split = count/2 = 0;
continued = hash2 == map[split - 1].hash;
---> map[4294967295]
The maximum length of a filename is 255 and the minimum block size is 1024,
so it is always guaranteed that the number of entries is greater than or
equal to 2 when do_split() is called.
But syzbot's crafted image has no dot and dotdot in dir, and the dentry
distribution in dirblock is as follows:
bus dentry1 hole dentry2 free
|xx--|xx-------------|...............|xx-------------|...............|
0 12 (8+248)=256 268 256 524 (8+256)=264 788 236 1024
So when renaming dentry1 increases its name_len length by 1, neither hole
nor free is sufficient to hold the new dentry, and make_indexed_dir() is
called.
In make_indexed_dir() it is assumed that the first two entries of the
dirblock must be dot and dotdot, so bus and dentry1 are left in dx_root
because they are treated as dot and dotdot, and only dentry2 is moved
to the new leaf block. That's why count is equal to 1.
Therefore add the ext4_check_dx_root() helper function to add more sanity
checks to dot and dotdot before starting the conversion to avoid the above
issue.
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 (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