In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: reserve space for inline xattr before attaching reflink tree
One of our customers reported a crash and a corrupted ocfs2 filesystem.
The crash was due to the detection of corruption. Upon troubleshooting,
the fsck -fn output showed the below corruption
[EXTENT_LIST_FREE] Extent list in owner 33080590 claims 230 as the next free chain record,
but fsck believes the largest valid value is 227. Clamp the next record value? n
The stat output from the debugfs.ocfs2 showed the following corruption
where the "Next Free Rec:" had overshot the "Count:" in the root metadata
block.
Inode: 33080590 Mode: 0640 Generation: 2619713622 (0x9c25a856)
FS Generation: 904309833 (0x35e6ac49)
CRC32: 00000000 ECC: 0000
Type: Regular Attr: 0x0 Flags: Valid
Dynamic Features: (0x16) HasXattr InlineXattr Refcounted
Extended Attributes Block: 0 Extended Attributes Inline Size: 256
User: 0 (root) Group: 0 (root) Size: 281320357888
Links: 1 Clusters: 141738
ctime: 0x66911b56 0x316edcb8 -- Fri Jul 12 06:02:30.829349048 2024
atime: 0x66911d6b 0x7f7a28d -- Fri Jul 12 06:11:23.133669517 2024
mtime: 0x66911b56 0x12ed75d7 -- Fri Jul 12 06:02:30.317552087 2024
dtime: 0x0 -- Wed Dec 31 17:00:00 1969
Refcount Block: 2777346
Last Extblk: 2886943 Orphan Slot: 0
Sub Alloc Slot: 0 Sub Alloc Bit: 14
Tree Depth: 1 Count: 227 Next Free Rec: 230
## Offset Clusters Block#
0 0 2310 2776351
1 2310 2139 2777375
2 4449 1221 2778399
3 5670 731 2779423
4 6401 566 2780447
....... .... .......
....... .... .......
The issue was in the reflink workfow while reserving space for inline
xattr. The problematic function is ocfs2_reflink_xattr_inline(). By the
time this function is called the reflink tree is already recreated at the
destination inode from the source inode. At this point, this function
reserves space for inline xattrs at the destination inode without even
checking if there is space at the root metadata block. It simply reduces
the l_count from 243 to 227 thereby making space of 256 bytes for inline
xattr whereas the inode already has extents beyond this index (in this
case up to 230), thereby causing corruption.
The fix for this is to reserve space for inline metadata at the destination
inode before the reflink tree gets recreated. The customer has verified the
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
- 0.3% 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