CVE-2026-45892

ext4: drop extent cache after doing PARTIAL_VALID1 zeroout

MEDIUM
5.5
CVSS Score
Published: May 27, 2026 at 12:17 PM UTC
Updated: June 27, 2026 at 11:41 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

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: ext4: drop extent cache after doing PARTIAL_VALID1 zeroout When splitting an unwritten extent in the middle and converting it to initialized in ext4_split_extent() with the EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT and EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flags set, it could leave a stale unwritten extent. Assume we have an unwritten file and buffered write in the middle of it without dioread_nolock enabled, it will allocate blocks as written extent. 0 A B N [UUUUUUUUUUUU] on-disk extent U: unwritten extent [UUUUUUUUUUUU] extent status tree [--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_PARTIAL_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 leave the entire extent as unwritten. 0 A B N [UUUUUUUUUUUU] on-disk extent [UUUUUUUUUUUU] extent status tree [--DDDDDDDDZZ] Z: zeroed 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 leave an written extent from A to N. 0 A B N [UUWWWWWWWWWW] on-disk extent W: written extent [UUUUUUUUUUUU] extent status tree [--DDDDDDDDZZ] Finally ext4_map_create_blocks() only insert extent A to B to the extent status tree, and leave an stale unwritten extent in the status tree. 0 A B N [UUWWWWWWWWWW] on-disk extent W: written extent [UUWWWWWWWWUU] extent status tree [--DDDDDDDDZZ] Fix this issue by always cached extent status entry after zeroing out the second part.

Affected

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

6.1.167 ≤ v < 6.1.1681bf6974822d1dba86cf11b5f05498581cf3488a258ddae5d77b1db3a27b891c75a8fa120239ac0926.1.1677015fcf473796e1d2d876f241bd9e0c36f3d4eefd17857b4fb9ba5745b59be0ef38fd532991fccbfd67c8ecf3d8fda9b8ef80e6f665d84b6d6ac9d88ddf854e59166533b0f46ba32cd6cd9aca3197d1b
Vendor states this is fixed in 28db4bfc6f82fd20e2aadb7fc162244109a4eb31 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6d882ea3b0931b43530d44149b79fcd4ffc13030 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in a1b962a821e7a52d48212ae269b45808b4411267 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in c2ee51d684adca7645e4aa74adca13f6750390bc (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in d8ee559fccdef713f058cfe5f2c03dc9b18be3b1 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in f0931a5c17005a0c4fc35bd1a001245effc3354b (fixed)
Affected range stops below 6.1.168, 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

StatusANALYZED
CWE
NVD-CWE-noinfo

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