In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: check discard support for conventional zones
As the helper function f2fs_bdev_support_discard() shows, f2fs checks if
the target block devices support discard by calling
bdev_max_discard_sectors() and bdev_is_zoned(). This check works well
for most cases, but it does not work for conventional zones on zoned
block devices. F2fs assumes that zoned block devices support discard,
and calls __submit_discard_cmd(). When __submit_discard_cmd() is called
for sequential write required zones, it works fine since
__submit_discard_cmd() issues zone reset commands instead of discard
commands. However, when __submit_discard_cmd() is called for
conventional zones, __blkdev_issue_discard() is called even when the
devices do not support discard.
The inappropriate __blkdev_issue_discard() call was not a problem before
the commit 30f1e7241422 ("block: move discard checks into the ioctl
handler") because __blkdev_issue_discard() checked if the target devices
support discard or not. If not, it returned EOPNOTSUPP. After the
commit, __blkdev_issue_discard() no longer checks it. It always returns
zero and sets NULL to the given bio pointer. This NULL pointer triggers
f2fs_bug_on() in __submit_discard_cmd(). The BUG is recreated with the
commands below at the umount step, where /dev/nullb0 is a zoned null_blk
with 5GB total size, 128MB zone size and 10 conventional zones.
$ mkfs.f2fs -f -m /dev/nullb0
$ mount /dev/nullb0 /mnt
$ for ((i=0;i<5;i++)); do dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test bs=65536 count=1600 conv=fsync; done
$ umount /mnt
To fix the BUG, avoid the inappropriate __blkdev_issue_discard() call.
When discard is requested for conventional zones, check if the device
supports discard or not. If not, return EOPNOTSUPP.
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