CVE-2026-23238

romfs: check sb_set_blocksize() return value

MEDIUM
5.5
CVSS Score
Published: March 4, 2026 at 02:38 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 10:21 AM UTC
2 products affected across 2 vendorsLinux KernelRUGGEDCOM RST2428P Firmware

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: romfs: check sb_set_blocksize() return value romfs_fill_super() ignores the return value of sb_set_blocksize(), which can fail if the requested block size is incompatible with the block device's configuration. This can be triggered by setting a loop device's block size larger than PAGE_SIZE using ioctl(LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE, 32768), then mounting a romfs filesystem on that device. When sb_set_blocksize(sb, ROMBSIZE) is called with ROMBSIZE=4096 but the device has logical_block_size=32768, bdev_validate_blocksize() fails because the requested size is smaller than the device's logical block size. sb_set_blocksize() returns 0 (failure), but romfs ignores this and continues mounting. The superblock's block size remains at the device's logical block size (32768). Later, when sb_bread() attempts I/O with this oversized block size, it triggers a kernel BUG in folio_set_bh(): kernel BUG at fs/buffer.c:1582! BUG_ON(size > PAGE_SIZE); Fix by checking the return value of sb_set_blocksize() and failing the mount with -EINVAL if it returns 0.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

2.6.12 ≤ v < 5.10.2512.6.12 ≤ v < 5.15.2012.6.12 ≤ v < 6.1.1642.6.12 ≤ v < 6.12.742.6.12 ≤ v < 6.18.132.6.12 ≤ v < 6.192.6.12 ≤ v < 6.6.1272.6.12.1 ≤ v < 5.10.2515.11 ≤ v < 5.15.2015.16 ≤ v < 6.1.1646.13 ≤ v < 6.18.136.2 ≤ v < 6.6.1276.7 ≤ v < 6.12.741da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac22.6.122.6.12 rc22.6.12 rc32.6.12 rc42.6.12 rc56.19 rc16.19 rc26.19 rc36.19 rc46.19 rc56.19 rc66.19 rc7
Vendor states this is fixed in 2c5829cd8fbbc91568c520b666898f57cdcb8cf6 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 4b71ad7676564a94ec5f7d18298f51e8ae53db73 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 9b203b8ddd7359270e8a694d0584743555128e2c (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in a381f0f61b35c8894b0bd0d6acef2d8f9b08b244 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in ab7ad7abb3660c58ffffdf07ff3bb976e7e0afa0 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in cbd9931e6456822067725354d83446c5bb813030 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in f2521ab1f63a8c244f06a080319e5ff9a2e1bd95 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 2.6.12 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.10.251 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15.201 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.1.164 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.74 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.13 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.19 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.127 (unaffected)
v < V4.0
Affected range stops below V4.0, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-617

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card