In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to do sanity check on sbi->total_valid_block_count
syzbot reported a f2fs bug as below:
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2521!
RIP: 0010:dec_valid_block_count+0x3b2/0x3c0 fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2521
Call Trace:
f2fs_truncate_data_blocks_range+0xc8c/0x11a0 fs/f2fs/file.c:695
truncate_dnode+0x417/0x740 fs/f2fs/node.c:973
truncate_nodes+0x3ec/0xf50 fs/f2fs/node.c:1014
f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks+0x8e3/0x1370 fs/f2fs/node.c:1197
f2fs_do_truncate_blocks+0x840/0x12b0 fs/f2fs/file.c:810
f2fs_truncate_blocks+0x10d/0x300 fs/f2fs/file.c:838
f2fs_truncate+0x417/0x720 fs/f2fs/file.c:888
f2fs_setattr+0xc4f/0x12f0 fs/f2fs/file.c:1112
notify_change+0xbca/0xe90 fs/attr.c:552
do_truncate+0x222/0x310 fs/open.c:65
handle_truncate fs/namei.c:3466 [inline]
do_open fs/namei.c:3849 [inline]
path_openat+0x2e4f/0x35d0 fs/namei.c:4004
do_filp_open+0x284/0x4e0 fs/namei.c:4031
do_sys_openat2+0x12b/0x1d0 fs/open.c:1429
do_sys_open fs/open.c:1444 [inline]
__do_sys_creat fs/open.c:1522 [inline]
__se_sys_creat fs/open.c:1516 [inline]
__x64_sys_creat+0x124/0x170 fs/open.c:1516
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
The reason is: in fuzzed image, sbi->total_valid_block_count is
inconsistent w/ mapped blocks indexed by inode, so, we should
not trigger panic for such case, instead, let's print log and
set fsck flag.
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 2026-10-24). 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