In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hfsplus: remove mutex_lock check in hfsplus_free_extents
Syzbot reported an issue in hfsplus filesystem:
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4400 at fs/hfsplus/extents.c:346
hfsplus_free_extents+0x700/0xad0
Call Trace:
hfsplus_file_truncate+0x768/0xbb0 fs/hfsplus/extents.c:606
hfsplus_write_begin+0xc2/0xd0 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:56
cont_expand_zero fs/buffer.c:2383 [inline]
cont_write_begin+0x2cf/0x860 fs/buffer.c:2446
hfsplus_write_begin+0x86/0xd0 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:52
generic_cont_expand_simple+0x151/0x250 fs/buffer.c:2347
hfsplus_setattr+0x168/0x280 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:263
notify_change+0xe38/0x10f0 fs/attr.c:420
do_truncate+0x1fb/0x2e0 fs/open.c:65
do_sys_ftruncate+0x2eb/0x380 fs/open.c:193
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
To avoid deadlock, Commit 31651c607151 ("hfsplus: avoid deadlock
on file truncation") unlock extree before hfsplus_free_extents(),
and add check wheather extree is locked in hfsplus_free_extents().
However, when operations such as hfsplus_file_release,
hfsplus_setattr, hfsplus_unlink, and hfsplus_get_block are executed
concurrently in different files, it is very likely to trigger the
WARN_ON, which will lead syzbot and xfstest to consider it as an
abnormality.
The comment above this warning also describes one of the easy
triggering situations, which can easily trigger and cause
xfstest&syzbot to report errors.
[task A] [task B]
->hfsplus_file_release
->hfsplus_file_truncate
->hfs_find_init
->mutex_lock
->mutex_unlock
->hfsplus_write_begin
->hfsplus_get_block
->hfsplus_file_extend
->hfsplus_ext_read_extent
->hfs_find_init
->mutex_lock
->hfsplus_free_extents
WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked) !!!
Several threads could try to lock the shared extents tree.
And warning can be triggered in one thread when another thread
has locked the tree. This is the wrong behavior of the code and
we need to remove the warning.
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
- 0.1% 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