In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix early read unlock of page with EOF in middle
The read result collection for buffered reads seems to run ahead of the
completion of subrequests under some circumstances, as can be seen in the
following log snippet:
9p_client_res: client 18446612686390831168 response P9_TREAD tag 0 err 0
...
netfs_sreq: R=00001b55[1] DOWN TERM f=192 s=0 5fb2/5fb2 s=5 e=0
...
netfs_collect_folio: R=00001b55 ix=00004 r=4000-5000 t=4000/5fb2
netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00004-00004 read-done
netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00004-00004 read-unlock
netfs_collect_folio: R=00001b55 ix=00005 r=5000-5fb2 t=5000/5fb2
netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00005-00005 read-done
netfs_folio: i=157f3 ix=00005-00005 read-unlock
...
netfs_collect_stream: R=00001b55[0:] cto=5fb2 frn=ffffffff
netfs_collect_state: R=00001b55 col=5fb2 cln=6000 n=c
netfs_collect_stream: R=00001b55[0:] cto=5fb2 frn=ffffffff
netfs_collect_state: R=00001b55 col=5fb2 cln=6000 n=8
...
netfs_sreq: R=00001b55[2] ZERO SUBMT f=000 s=5fb2 0/4e s=0 e=0
netfs_sreq: R=00001b55[2] ZERO TERM f=102 s=5fb2 4e/4e s=5 e=0
The 'cto=5fb2' indicates the collected file pos we've collected results to
so far - but we still have 0x4e more bytes to go - so we shouldn't have
collected folio ix=00005 yet. The 'ZERO' subreq that clears the tail
happens after we unlock the folio, allowing the application to see the
uncleared tail through mmap.
The problem is that netfs_read_unlock_folios() will unlock a folio in which
the amount of read results collected hits EOF position - but the ZERO
subreq lies beyond that and so happens after.
Fix this by changing the end check to always be the end of the folio and
never the end of the file.
In the future, I should look at clearing to the end of the folio here rather
than adding a ZERO subreq to do this. On the other hand, the ZERO subreq can
run in parallel with an async READ subreq. Further, the ZERO subreq may still
be necessary to, say, handle extents in a ceph file that don't have any
backing store and are thus implicitly all zeros.
This can be reproduced by creating a file, the size of which doesn't align
to a page boundary, e.g. 24998 (0x5fb2) bytes and then doing something
like:
xfs_io -c "mmap -r 0 0x6000" -c "madvise -d 0 0x6000" \
-c "mread -v 0 0x6000" /xfstest.test/x
The last 0x4e bytes should all be 00, but if the tail hasn't been cleared
yet, you may see rubbish there. This can be reproduced with kafs by
modifying the kernel to disable the call to netfs_read_subreq_progress()
and to stop afs_issue_read() from doing the async call for NETFS_READAHEAD.
Reproduction can be made easier by inserting an mdelay(100) in
netfs_issue_read() for the ZERO-subreq case.
AFS and CIFS are normally unlikely to show this as they dispatch READ ops
asynchronously, which allows the ZERO-subreq to finish first. 9P's READ op is
completely synchronous, so the ZERO-subreq will always happen after. It isn't
seen all the time, though, because the collection may be done in a worker
thread.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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