GHSA-3RFC-7V55-GMRF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-19 18:31In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix folio->private handling in netfs_perform_write()
Under some circumstances, netfs_perform_write() doesn't correctly manipulate folio->private between NULL, NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, pointing to a group and pointing to a netfs_folio struct, leading to potential multiple attachments of private data with associated folio ref leaks and also leaks of netfs_folio structs or netfs_group refs.
Fix this by consolidating the place at which a folio is marked uptodate in one place and having that look at what's attached to folio->private and decide how to clean it up and then set the new group. Also, the content shouldn't be flushed if group is NULL, even if a group is specified in the netfs_group parameter, as that would be the case for a new folio. A filesystem should always specify netfs_group or never specify netfs_group.
The Sashiko auto-review tool noted that it was theoretically possible that the fpos >= ctx->zero_point section might leak if it modified a streaming write folio. This is unlikely, but with a network filesystem, third party changes can happen. It also pointed out that __netfs_set_group() would leak if called multiple times on the same folio from the "whole folio modify section".
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-64059"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-19T16:17:46Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnetfs: Fix folio-\u003eprivate handling in netfs_perform_write()\n\nUnder some circumstances, netfs_perform_write() doesn\u0027t correctly\nmanipulate folio-\u003eprivate between NULL, NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, pointing\nto a group and pointing to a netfs_folio struct, leading to potential\nmultiple attachments of private data with associated folio ref leaks and\nalso leaks of netfs_folio structs or netfs_group refs.\n\nFix this by consolidating the place at which a folio is marked uptodate in\none place and having that look at what\u0027s attached to folio-\u003eprivate and\ndecide how to clean it up and then set the new group. Also, the content\nshouldn\u0027t be flushed if group is NULL, even if a group is specified in the\nnetfs_group parameter, as that would be the case for a new folio. A\nfilesystem should always specify netfs_group or never specify netfs_group.\n\nThe Sashiko auto-review tool noted that it was theoretically possible that\nthe fpos \u003e= ctx-\u003ezero_point section might leak if it modified a streaming\nwrite folio. This is unlikely, but with a network filesystem, third party\nchanges can happen. It also pointed out that __netfs_set_group() would\nleak if called multiple times on the same folio from the \"whole folio\nmodify section\".",
"id": "GHSA-3rfc-7v55-gmrf",
"modified": "2026-07-19T18:31:51Z",
"published": "2026-07-19T18:31:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64059"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0969ea8370bad0e4fb6131b6a7bed9e7ec522ac7"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/551b5c71ee312ca7646ddb605231c1016e8cbb18"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7f040243c74d72b45b22246c7d9e621fbeab44ac"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ccde2ac757c713535b224233a296de40efe5212d"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.