In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to avoid out-of-bounds access in f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks()
syzbot reports an UBSAN issue as below:
------------[ cut here ]------------
UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in fs/f2fs/node.h:381:10
index 18446744073709550692 is out of range for type '__le32[5]' (aka 'unsigned int[5]')
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 5318 Comm: syz.0.0 Not tainted 6.14.0-rc3-syzkaller-00060-g6537cfb395f3 #0
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:94 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0x241/0x360 lib/dump_stack.c:120
ubsan_epilogue lib/ubsan.c:231 [inline]
__ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0x121/0x150 lib/ubsan.c:429
get_nid fs/f2fs/node.h:381 [inline]
f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks+0xa5e/0xf60 fs/f2fs/node.c:1181
f2fs_do_truncate_blocks+0x782/0x1030 fs/f2fs/file.c:808
f2fs_truncate_blocks+0x10d/0x300 fs/f2fs/file.c:836
f2fs_truncate+0x417/0x720 fs/f2fs/file.c:886
f2fs_file_write_iter+0x1bdb/0x2550 fs/f2fs/file.c:5093
aio_write+0x56b/0x7c0 fs/aio.c:1633
io_submit_one+0x8a7/0x18a0 fs/aio.c:2052
__do_sys_io_submit fs/aio.c:2111 [inline]
__se_sys_io_submit+0x171/0x2e0 fs/aio.c:2081
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7f238798cde9
index 18446744073709550692 (decimal, unsigned long long)
= 0xfffffffffffffc64 (hexadecimal, unsigned long long)
= -924 (decimal, long long)
In f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks(), UBSAN detects that get_nid() tries to
access .i_nid[-924], it means both offset[0] and level should zero.
The possible case should be in f2fs_do_truncate_blocks(), we try to
truncate inode size to zero, however, dn.ofs_in_node is zero and
dn.node_page is not an inode page, so it fails to truncate inode page,
and then pass zeroed free_from to f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks(), result
in this issue.
if (dn.ofs_in_node || IS_INODE(dn.node_page)) {
f2fs_truncate_data_blocks_range(&dn, count);
free_from += count;
}
I guess the reason why dn.node_page is not an inode page could be: there
are multiple nat entries share the same node block address, once the node
block address was reused, f2fs_get_node_page() may load a non-inode block.
Let's add a sanity check for such condition to avoid out-of-bounds access
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 (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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