In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to avoid mapping wrong physical block for swapfile
Xiaolong Guo reported a f2fs bug in bugzilla [1]
[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220951
Quoted:
"When using stress-ng's swap stress test on F2FS filesystem with kernel 6.6+,
the system experiences data corruption leading to either:
1 dm-verity corruption errors and device reboot
2 F2FS node corruption errors and boot hangs
The issue occurs specifically when:
1 Using F2FS filesystem (ext4 is unaffected)
2 Swapfile size is less than F2FS section size (2MB)
3 Swapfile has fragmented physical layout (multiple non-contiguous extents)
4 Kernel version is 6.6+ (6.1 is unaffected)
The root cause is in check_swap_activate() function in fs/f2fs/data.c. When the
first extent of a small swapfile (< 2MB) is not aligned to section boundaries,
the function incorrectly treats it as the last extent, failing to map
subsequent extents. This results in incorrect swap_extent creation where only
the first extent is mapped, causing subsequent swap writes to overwrite wrong
physical locations (other files' data).
Steps to Reproduce
1 Setup a device with F2FS-formatted userdata partition
2 Compile stress-ng from https://github.com/ColinIanKing/stress-ng
3 Run swap stress test: (Android devices)
adb shell "cd /data/stressng; ./stress-ng-64 --metrics-brief --timeout 60
--swap 0"
Log:
1 Ftrace shows in kernel 6.6, only first extent is mapped during second
f2fs_map_blocks call in check_swap_activate():
stress-ng-swap-8990: f2fs_map_blocks: ino=11002, file offset=0, start
blkaddr=0x43143, len=0x1
(Only 4KB mapped, not the full swapfile)
2 in kernel 6.1, both extents are correctly mapped:
stress-ng-swap-5966: f2fs_map_blocks: ino=28011, file offset=0, start
blkaddr=0x13cd4, len=0x1
stress-ng-swap-5966: f2fs_map_blocks: ino=28011, file offset=1, start
blkaddr=0x60c84b, len=0xff
The problematic code is in check_swap_activate():
if ((pblock - SM_I(sbi)->main_blkaddr) % blks_per_sec ||
nr_pblocks % blks_per_sec ||
!f2fs_valid_pinned_area(sbi, pblock)) {
bool last_extent = false;
not_aligned++;
nr_pblocks = roundup(nr_pblocks, blks_per_sec);
if (cur_lblock + nr_pblocks > sis->max)
nr_pblocks -= blks_per_sec;
/* this extent is last one */
if (!nr_pblocks) {
nr_pblocks = last_lblock - cur_lblock;
last_extent = true;
}
ret = f2fs_migrate_blocks(inode, cur_lblock, nr_pblocks);
if (ret) {
if (ret == -ENOENT)
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
if (!last_extent)
goto retry;
}
When the first extent is unaligned and roundup(nr_pblocks, blks_per_sec)
exceeds sis->max, we subtract blks_per_sec resulting in nr_pblocks = 0. The
code then incorrectly assumes this is the last extent, sets nr_pblocks =
last_lblock - cur_lblock (entire swapfile), and performs migration. After
migration, it doesn't retry mapping, so subsequent extents are never processed.
"
In order to fix this issue, we need to lookup block mapping info after
we migrate all blocks in the tail of swapfile.
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 2026-10-30). 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