In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix streaming write being overwritten
In order to avoid reading whilst writing, netfslib will allow "streaming
writes" in which dirty data is stored directly into folios without reading
them first. Such folios are marked dirty but may not be marked uptodate.
If a folio is entirely written by a streaming write, uptodate will be set,
otherwise it will have a netfs_folio struct attached to ->private recording
the dirty region.
In the event that a partially written streaming write page is to be
overwritten entirely by a single write(), netfs_perform_write() will try to
copy over it, but doesn't discard the netfs_folio if it succeeds; further,
it doesn't correctly handle a partial copy that overwrites some of the
dirty data.
Fix this by the following:
(1) If the folio is successfully overwritten, free the netfs_folio struct
before marking the page uptodate.
(2) If the copy to the folio partially fails, but short of the dirty data,
just ignore the copy.
(3) If the copy partially fails and overwrites some of the dirty data,
accept the copy, update the netfs_folio struct to record the new data.
If the folio is now filled, free the netfs_folio and set uptodate,
otherwise return a partial write.
Found with:
fsx -q -N 1000000 -p 10000 -o 128000 -l 600000 \
/xfstest.test/junk --replay-ops=junk.fsxops
using the following as junk.fsxops:
truncate 0x0 0 0x927c0
write 0x63fb8 0x53c8 0
copy_range 0xb704 0x19b9 0x24429 0x79380
write 0x2402b 0x144a2 0x90660 *
write 0x204d5 0x140a0 0x927c0 *
copy_range 0x1f72c 0x137d0 0x7a906 0x927c0 *
read 0x00000 0x20000 0x9157c
read 0x20000 0x20000 0x9157c
read 0x40000 0x20000 0x9157c
read 0x60000 0x20000 0x9157c
read 0x7e1a0 0xcfb9 0x9157c
on cifs with the default cache option.
It shows folio 0x24 misbehaving if the FMODE_READ check is commented out in
netfs_perform_write():
if (//(file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) ||
netfs_is_cache_enabled(ctx)) {
and no fscache. This was initially found with the generic/522 xfstest.
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 2026-10-28). 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