GHSA-PQWG-4RRM-3FG7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-27 15:33 – Updated: 2026-05-27 15:33
VLAI
Details

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

ext4: don't zero the entire extent if EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1

When allocating initialized blocks from a large unwritten extent, or when splitting an unwritten extent during end I/O and converting it to initialized, there is currently a potential issue of stale data if the extent needs to be split in the middle.

   0  A      B  N
   [UUUUUUUUUUUU]    U: unwritten extent
   [--DDDDDDDD--]    D: valid data
      |<-  ->| ----> this range needs to be initialized

ext4_split_extent() first try to split this extent at B with EXT4_EXT_DATA_ENTIRE_VALID1 and EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT flag set, but ext4_split_extent_at() failed to split this extent due to temporary lack of space. It zeroout B to N and mark the entire extent from 0 to N as written.

   0  A      B  N
   [WWWWWWWWWWWW]    W: written extent
   [SSDDDDDDDDZZ]    Z: zeroed, S: stale data

ext4_split_extent() then try to split this extent at A with EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag set. This time, it split successfully and left a stale written extent from 0 to A.

   0  A      B   N
   [WW|WWWWWWWWWW]
   [SS|DDDDDDDDZZ]

Fix this by pass EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1 to ext4_split_extent_at() when splitting at B, don't convert the entire extent to written and left it as unwritten after zeroing out B to N. The remaining work is just like the standard two-part split. ext4_split_extent() will pass the EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag when it calls ext4_split_extent_at() for the second time, allowing it to properly handle the split. If the split is successful, it will keep extent from 0 to A as unwritten.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-45858"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-27T14:16:57Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\next4: don\u0027t zero the entire extent if EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1\n\nWhen allocating initialized blocks from a large unwritten extent, or\nwhen splitting an unwritten extent during end I/O and converting it to\ninitialized, there is currently a potential issue of stale data if the\nextent needs to be split in the middle.\n\n       0  A      B  N\n       [UUUUUUUUUUUU]    U: unwritten extent\n       [--DDDDDDDD--]    D: valid data\n          |\u003c-  -\u003e| ----\u003e this range needs to be initialized\n\next4_split_extent() first try to split this extent at B with\nEXT4_EXT_DATA_ENTIRE_VALID1 and EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT flag set, but\next4_split_extent_at() failed to split this extent due to temporary lack\nof space. It zeroout B to N and mark the entire extent from 0 to N\nas written.\n\n       0  A      B  N\n       [WWWWWWWWWWWW]    W: written extent\n       [SSDDDDDDDDZZ]    Z: zeroed, S: stale data\n\next4_split_extent() then try to split this extent at A with\nEXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag set. This time, it split successfully and left\na stale written extent from 0 to A.\n\n       0  A      B   N\n       [WW|WWWWWWWWWW]\n       [SS|DDDDDDDDZZ]\n\nFix this by pass EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1 to ext4_split_extent_at()\nwhen splitting at B, don\u0027t convert the entire extent to written and left\nit as unwritten after zeroing out B to N. The remaining work is just\nlike the standard two-part split. ext4_split_extent() will pass the\nEXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag when it calls ext4_split_extent_at() for the\nsecond time, allowing it to properly handle the split. If the split is\nsuccessful, it will keep extent from 0 to A as unwritten.",
  "id": "GHSA-pqwg-4rrm-3fg7",
  "modified": "2026-05-27T15:33:13Z",
  "published": "2026-05-27T15:33:13Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-45858"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1bf6974822d1dba86cf11b5f05498581cf3488a2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/58ddae5d77b1db3a27b891c75a8fa120239ac092"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7015fcf473796e1d2d876f241bd9e0c36f3d4eef"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d17857b4fb9ba5745b59be0ef38fd532991fccbf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d67c8ecf3d8fda9b8ef80e6f665d84b6d6ac9d88"
    }
  ],
  "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…