In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to avoid out-of-boundary access in dnode page
As Jiaming Zhang reported:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:94 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0x1c1/0x2a0 lib/dump_stack.c:120
print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:378 [inline]
print_report+0x17e/0x800 mm/kasan/report.c:480
kasan_report+0x147/0x180 mm/kasan/report.c:593
data_blkaddr fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:3053 [inline]
f2fs_data_blkaddr fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:3058 [inline]
f2fs_get_dnode_of_data+0x1a09/0x1c40 fs/f2fs/node.c:855
f2fs_reserve_block+0x53/0x310 fs/f2fs/data.c:1195
prepare_write_begin fs/f2fs/data.c:3395 [inline]
f2fs_write_begin+0xf39/0x2190 fs/f2fs/data.c:3594
generic_perform_write+0x2c7/0x910 mm/filemap.c:4112
f2fs_buffered_write_iter fs/f2fs/file.c:4988 [inline]
f2fs_file_write_iter+0x1ec8/0x2410 fs/f2fs/file.c:5216
new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:593 [inline]
vfs_write+0x546/0xa90 fs/read_write.c:686
ksys_write+0x149/0x250 fs/read_write.c:738
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x3d0 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
The root cause is in the corrupted image, there is a dnode has the same
node id w/ its inode, so during f2fs_get_dnode_of_data(), it tries to
access block address in dnode at offset 934, however it parses the dnode
as inode node, so that get_dnode_addr() returns 360, then it tries to
access page address from 360 + 934 * 4 = 4096 w/ 4 bytes.
To fix this issue, let's add sanity check for node id of all direct nodes
during f2fs_get_dnode_of_data().
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 2026-11-02). 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