In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix unbuffered write error handling
If all the subrequests in an unbuffered write stream fail, the subrequest
collector doesn't update the stream->transferred value and it retains its
initial LONG_MAX value. Unfortunately, if all active streams fail, then we
take the smallest value of { LONG_MAX, LONG_MAX, ... } as the value to set
in wreq->transferred - which is then returned from ->write_iter().
LONG_MAX was chosen as the initial value so that all the streams can be
quickly assessed by taking the smallest value of all stream->transferred -
but this only works if we've set any of them.
Fix this by adding a flag to indicate whether the value in
stream->transferred is valid and checking that when we integrate the
values. stream->transferred can then be initialised to zero.
This was found by running the generic/750 xfstest against cifs with
cache=none. It splices data to the target file. Once (if) it has used up
all the available scratch space, the writes start failing with ENOSPC.
This causes ->write_iter() to fail. However, it was returning
wreq->transferred, i.e. LONG_MAX, rather than an error (because it thought
the amount transferred was non-zero) and iter_file_splice_write() would
then try to clean up that amount of pipe bufferage - leading to an oops
when it overran. The kernel log showed:
CIFS: VFS: Send error in write = -28
followed by:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000008
with:
RIP: 0010:iter_file_splice_write+0x3a4/0x520
do_splice+0x197/0x4e0
or:
RIP: 0010:pipe_buf_release (include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h:282)
iter_file_splice_write (fs/splice.c:755)
Also put a warning check into splice to announce if ->write_iter() returned
that it had written more than it was asked to.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 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