GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-HMP9-JXMH-JFH2

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-15 06:32 – Updated: 2026-08-15 06:32
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

NFS: Charge unstable writes by request size, not folio size

nfs_folio_mark_unstable() and nfs_folio_clear_commit() charge and uncharge NR_WRITEBACK/WB_WRITEBACK by folio_nr_pages(folio) once per request added to or removed from a commit list. This is correct only when a folio has a single associated request. When pg_test splits a folio into N sub-folio requests (e.g. pNFS flexfiles striping with a stripe unit smaller than the folio size, or plain wsize-limited splitting), each of the N requests independently charges the whole folio's page count, inflating the accounting by a factor of N per folio. With large folios and small stripe units this reaches multiple orders of magnitude: a 2 MiB folio split into 512 4 KiB requests can charge up to 512x its real size, pushing global dirty+writeback accounting past the system's dirty threshold and forcing every buffered writer on the host into the hard-throttle path, including unrelated in-kernel NFS server threads sharing the box.

Charge each request only for the pages it actually covers.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-72132"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-15T06:21:30Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nNFS: Charge unstable writes by request size, not folio size\n\nnfs_folio_mark_unstable() and nfs_folio_clear_commit() charge and\nuncharge NR_WRITEBACK/WB_WRITEBACK by folio_nr_pages(folio) once per\n*request* added to or removed from a commit list. This is correct only\nwhen a folio has a single associated request. When pg_test splits a\nfolio into N sub-folio requests (e.g. pNFS flexfiles striping with a\nstripe unit smaller than the folio size, or plain wsize-limited\nsplitting), each of the N requests independently charges the whole\nfolio\u0027s page count, inflating the accounting by a factor of N per\nfolio. With large folios and small stripe units this reaches multiple\norders of magnitude: a 2 MiB folio split into 512 4 KiB requests can\ncharge up to 512x its real size, pushing global dirty+writeback\naccounting past the system\u0027s dirty threshold and forcing every\nbuffered writer on the host into the hard-throttle path, including\nunrelated in-kernel NFS server threads sharing the box.\n\nCharge each request only for the pages it actually covers.",
  "id": "GHSA-hmp9-jxmh-jfh2",
  "modified": "2026-08-15T06:32:13Z",
  "published": "2026-08-15T06:32:13Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72132"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0ffc032294a29601b1019dba91aa1a930d90df17"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1f646e23372f3444dc5f0bcb5404a49d26756add"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/27934d02cbeb8a957dd11c985a579e58d30c5270"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a192b6c149c6ea10cc88869accb78165eb454456"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a442c258320b689f13d2205eaeeddf8b0e630288"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

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.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…