Evidence-led vulnerability intelligence · 2026-05-27 19:47 IST

CVE-2026-45912

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't cache extent during splitting extent Caching extents during the splitting process is risky, as it may result in stale extents remaining in the status tree. Moreover, in most cases, the corresponding extent block entries are likely already cached before the split happens, making caching here not particularly useful. Assume we have an unwritten extent, and then DIO writes the first half. [UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent [UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] extent status tree |<- ->| ----> dio write this range First, when ext4_split_extent_at() splits this extent, it truncates the existing extent and then inserts a new one. During this process, this extent status entry may be shrunk, and calls to ext4_find_extent() and ext4_cache_extents() may occur, which could potentially insert the truncated range as a hole into the extent status tree. After the split is completed, this hole is not replaced with the correct status. [UUUUUUU|UUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent [UUUUUUU|HHHHHHHH] extent status tree H: hole Then, the outer calling functions will not correct this remaining hole extent either. Finally, if we perform a delayed buffer write on this latter part, it will re-insert the delayed extent and cause an error in space accounting. In adition, if the unwritten extent cache is not shrunk during the splitting, ext4_cache_extents() also conflicts with existing extents when caching extents. In the future, we will add checks when caching extents, which will trigger a warning. Therefore, Do not cache extents that are being split.

MEDIUM · 5.5Linux

Executive briefing

The source record describes: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't cache extent during splitting extent Caching extents during the splitting process is risky, as it may result in stale extents remaining in the status tree. Moreover, in most cases, the corresponding extent block entries are likely already cached before the split happens, making caching here not particularly useful. Assume we have an unwritten extent, and then DIO writes the first half. [UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent [UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU] extent status tree |<- ->| ----> dio write this range First, when ext4_split_extent_at() splits this extent, it truncates the existing extent and then inserts a new one. During this process, this extent status entry may be shrunk, and calls to ext4_find_extent() and ext4_cache_extents() may occur, which could potentially insert the truncated range as a hole into the extent status tree. After the split is completed, this hole is not replaced with the correct status. [UUUUUUU|UUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent [UUUUUUU|HHHHHHHH] extent status tree H: hole Then, the outer calling functions will not correct this remaining hole extent either. Finally, if we perform a delayed buffer write on this latter part, it will re-insert the delayed extent and cause an error in space accounting. In adition, if the unwritten extent cache is not shrunk during the splitting, ext4_cache_extents() also conflicts with existing extents when caching extents. In the future, we will add checks when caching extents, which will trigger a warning. Therefore, Do not cache extents that are being split. The practical risk depends on whether an affected product/version is present, reachable and configured in an exploitable way. Review the affected-product evidence and linked vendor advisories before assigning exposure status.

Assessment: Potential exposure only — validate the installed product, exact version, configuration and vendor applicability before treating an asset as confirmed vulnerable.

Evidence confidence: Moderate Evidence-derived, not an exploitability verdict

Severity & attack characteristics

5.5 / 10 · 3.1

CVSS vector:
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vectorL
Attack complexityL
Privileges requiredL
User interactionN
ScopeU
Confidentiality impactN
Integrity impactN
Availability impactH

Technical explanation & impact

The technical mechanism is not expanded beyond the source description unless a referenced advisory supplies additional evidence. Read the linked vendor/CERT advisories for root-cause detail.

Potential impact must be interpreted from the published CVSS impact metrics and the affected component. A CVSS impact score is not proof that a particular asset is exploitable.

Weakness classification

NVD-CWE-noinfo

Affected products and versions

Products below are parsed from NVD vulnerable CPE configuration entries. Version boundaries are shown as published; verify applicability with the vendor.

VendorProductVersion evidence
linuxlinux_kernelfrom (inclusive) 6.19; before 6.19.4

Remediation & validation

  1. Identify exposure by comparing the affected product and version ranges with your asset inventory, SBOM and externally exposed services.
  2. Review the linked vendor security advisory or patch notes. Upgrade to a vendor-confirmed fixed release; do not infer a fixed version from the CVE description.
  3. Until patched, consider restricting network access or disabling the affected feature where operationally safe. These are temporary controls, not a substitute for a vendor fix.
  4. Validate the remediation with a version check and vulnerability rescan, then retain change evidence.

No fixed version is displayed unless it is explicitly established by a vendor advisory. Follow the vendor's release notes for exact product and branch applicability.

Vendor advisories, patches & exploit references

Open NVD record ← Back to CVE Watch

Threat intelligence, made actionable · CVE data sourced from the NVD