In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: validate fast symlink target during inode read
ocfs2_validate_inode_block() already rejects several inconsistent
self-contained dinodes before they are exposed to the rest of the
filesystem. Fast symlinks need the same treatment.
A zero-cluster symlink is treated as a fast symlink and later read through
page_get_link() and ocfs2_fast_symlink_read_folio(). That path uses
strnlen() on the inline payload and then copies len + 1 bytes into the
folio. If a corrupt dinode stores an i_size that does not fit the inline
area or omits the terminating NUL at i_size, that copy reads past the end
of the inode block buffer.
Reject zero-cluster symlink dinodes whose i_size exceeds the inline
fast-symlink capacity or whose inline payload is not NUL-terminated
exactly at i_size when the inode block is validated. This keeps malformed
fast symlinks from reaching the read path.
Validation reproduced this kernel report:
KASAN use-after-free in ocfs2_fast_symlink_read_folio+0x12c/0x1f0
RIP: 0033:0x7f5c6d859aa7
Read of size 3905
Call trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x66/0xa0 (?:?)
print_report+0xce/0x630 (?:?)
ocfs2_fast_symlink_read_folio+0x12c/0x1f0 (fs/ocfs2/inode.c:?)
srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 (?:?)
__virt_addr_valid+0x19f/0x330 (?:?)
kasan_report+0xe0/0x110 (?:?)
kasan_check_range+0x105/0x1b0 (?:?)
__asan_memcpy+0x23/0x60 (?:?)
filemap_read_folio+0x27/0xe0 (?:?)
filemap_read_folio+0x35/0xe0 (?:?)
do_read_cache_folio+0x138/0x230 (?:?)
__page_get_link+0x26/0x110 (?:?)
page_get_link+0x2e/0x70 (?:?)
vfs_readlink+0x15e/0x250 (?:?)
touch_atime+0x4d/0x370 (?:?)
do_readlinkat+0x186/0x200 (?:?)
do_user_addr_fault+0x65a/0x890 (?:?)
__x64_sys_readlink+0x46/0x60 (?:?)
do_syscall_64+0x115/0x6a0 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:87)
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f (?:?)
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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