In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: convert inline data to extents when truncate exceeds inline size
Add a check in ext4_setattr() to convert files from inline data storage
to extent-based storage when truncate() grows the file size beyond the
inline capacity. This prevents the filesystem from entering an
inconsistent state where the inline data flag is set but the file size
exceeds what can be stored inline.
Without this fix, the following sequence causes a kernel BUG_ON():
- Mount filesystem with inode that has inline flag set and small size
- truncate(file, 50MB) - grows size but inline flag remains set
- sendfile() attempts to write data
- ext4_write_inline_data() hits BUG_ON(write_size > inline_capacity)
The crash occurs because ext4_write_inline_data() expects inline storage
to accommodate the write, but the actual inline capacity (~60 bytes for
i_block + ~96 bytes for xattrs) is far smaller than the file size and
write request.
The fix checks if the new size from setattr exceeds the inode's actual
inline capacity (EXT4_I(inode)->i_inline_size) and converts the file to
extent-based storage before proceeding with the size change.
This addresses the root cause by ensuring the inline data flag and file
size remain consistent during truncate operations.
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 2026-11-11). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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