In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: fix dirtyclusters double decrement on fs shutdown
fstests test generic/388 occasionally reproduces a warning in
ext4_put_super() associated with the dirty clusters count:
WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 76064 at fs/ext4/super.c:1324 ext4_put_super+0x48c/0x590 [ext4]
Tracing the failure shows that the warning fires due to an
s_dirtyclusters_counter value of -1. IOW, this appears to be a
spurious decrement as opposed to some sort of leak. Further tracing
of the dirty cluster count deltas and an LLM scan of the resulting
output identified the cause as a double decrement in the error path
between ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used() and the caller
ext4_mb_new_blocks().
First, note that generic/388 is a shutdown vs. fsstress test and so
produces a random set of operations and shutdown injections. In the
problematic case, the shutdown triggers an error return from the
ext4_handle_dirty_metadata() call(s) made from
ext4_mb_mark_context(). The changed value is non-zero at this point,
so ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used() does not exit after the error
bubbles up from ext4_mb_mark_context(). Instead, the former
decrements both cluster counters and returns the error up to
ext4_mb_new_blocks(). The latter falls into the !ar->len out path
which decrements the dirty clusters counter a second time, creating
the inconsistency.
To avoid this problem and simplify ownership of the cluster
reservation in this codepath, lift the counter reduction to a single
place in the caller. This makes it more clear that
ext4_mb_new_blocks() is responsible for acquiring cluster
reservation (via ext4_claim_free_clusters()) in the !delalloc case
as well as releasing it, regardless of whether it ends up consumed
or returned due to failure.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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