CVE-2026-89493
Received Received - Intake

Buffer Overflow in OCFS2 Refcount Block Validation

Vulnerability report for CVE-2026-89493, including description, CVSS score, EPSS score, affected products, exploitability, helpful resources, and attack-flow context.

Publication date: 2026-09-11

Last updated on: 2026-09-11

Assigner: kernel.org

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ocfs2: validate rl_used against rl_count in refcount block validator ocfs2_find_refcount_rec_in_rl() walks the on-disk refcount record array with: for (; i < le16_to_cpu(rb->rf_records.rl_used); i++) { rec = &rb->rf_records.rl_recs[i]; ... rl_recs[] lives in a single metadata block (4096 bytes on the common configuration), so its real capacity is fixed by ocfs2_refcount_recs_per_rb(sb) (247 records for a 4K block with the 16-byte ocfs2_refcount_rec). rl_used and rl_count are both read directly off disk by ocfs2_validate_refcount_block() and are never checked against that capacity, nor against each other, before any refcount/reflink/CoW operation walks the array. A crafted (or corrupted) refcount block with rl_used == 0xffff makes the loop above walk far past the end of the block, dereferencing rl_recs[i] for i up to 65534. The resulting index is then handed to the sibling ocfs2_insert_refcount_rec(), whose insert-shift does: if (index < le16_to_cpu(rf_list->rl_used)) memmove(&rf_list->rl_recs[index + 1], &rf_list->rl_recs[index], (le16_to_cpu(rf_list->rl_used) - index) * sizeof(struct ocfs2_refcount_rec)); i.e. a memmove() of up to (0xffff - index) * 16 bytes (~1 MiB) from an offset already past the block. This is reachable from an ordinary reflink (FICLONE) against a crafted/corrupted ocfs2 image: attaching an extent whose cpos sorts past every real record in the leaf forces the lookup to run off the end instead of returning early on a match. The attacker model is local: CAP_SYS_ADMIN mounting a crafted or corrupted ocfs2 image, or a raw write to the block device backing an already-mounted ocfs2 filesystem. ocfs2_validate_refcount_block() already validates the block's ECC, signature, rf_blkno and rf_fs_generation, but never rl_count/rl_used against the block's actual on-disk capacity. This is the same class of gap that ocfs2_validate_extent_block() (fs/ocfs2/alloc.c) already closes for the sibling extent-list header, which checks both the record capacity and the "used" bound before any code walks h_list.l_recs[]: if (le16_to_cpu(eb->h_list.l_count) != ocfs2_extent_recs_per_eb(sb)) { rc = ocfs2_error(...); goto bail; } if (le16_to_cpu(eb->h_list.l_next_free_rec) > le16_to_cpu(eb->h_list.l_count)) { rc = ocfs2_error(...); goto bail; } Add the equivalent pair of checks to ocfs2_validate_refcount_block(): reject a refcount block whose rl_count does not match the fixed per-block capacity returned by ocfs2_refcount_recs_per_rb(), and reject rl_used > rl_count. Both checks are skipped when OCFS2_REFCOUNT_TREE_FL is set, because in that case the same union bytes hold an ocfs2_extent_list (rf_list), not the refcount record list (rf_records) -- that layout is already validated separately by ocfs2_validate_extent_block() when the referenced extent block is read. This mirrors the existing "!(rb->rf_flags & OCFS2_REFCOUNT_TREE_FL)" guard used elsewhere in this file (e.g. ocfs2_get_refcount_rec()) to decide whether rf_records or rf_list is the live member of the union. With this in place, a forged rl_used/rl_count is caught at block validation time (ocfs2_error()), consistent with every other corruption check in this function, instead of driving an out-of-bounds read in ocfs2_find_refcount_rec_in_rl() and a subsequent out-of-bounds memmove() in ocfs2_insert_refcount_rec(). Verified against a crafted image on a v6.19 KASAN (KASAN_GENERIC) build: replaying the same reflink (FICLONE) reliably hit a KASAN report in __ocfs2_increase_refcount()/ocfs2_insert_refcount_rec() before this patch, and triggers no report once ocfs2_validate_refcount_block() rejects the forged rl_used/rl_count.

CVSS Scores

EPSS Scores

Probability:
Percentile:

Meta Information

Published
2026-09-11
Last Modified
2026-09-11
Generated
2026-09-12
AI Q&A
2026-09-12
EPSS Evaluated
N/A
NVD
EUVD

Affected Vendors & Products

Showing 1 associated CPE
Vendor Product Version / Range
oracle ocfs2 *

Helpful Resources

Exploitability

CWE
CWE Icon
KEV
KEV Icon
CWE ID Description
CWE-UNKNOWN

Attack-Flow Graph

AI Quick Actions

Instant insights powered by AI
Executive Summary

This vulnerability is in the Linux kernel's OCFS2 filesystem. It involves a flaw in the refcount block validator where rl_used and rl_count values are not properly validated against the actual capacity of the block. This allows an attacker with CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges to craft a corrupted OCFS2 image that triggers out-of-bounds memory access during operations like reflink (FICLONE). The issue arises because the loop in ocfs2_find_refcount_rec_in_rl() uses rl_used without checking if it exceeds the block's capacity, leading to potential memory corruption.

Detection Guidance

This vulnerability is specific to the OCFS2 filesystem in the Linux kernel and requires local access to a system using OCFS2. Detection involves checking kernel logs for OCFS2-related errors or using filesystem validation tools. No network-based detection commands are applicable. Monitor for filesystem corruption or crashes during OCFS2 operations.

Impact Analysis

If exploited, this vulnerability could allow a local attacker with CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges to cause a denial of service (DoS) or execute arbitrary code on the system. The attacker could achieve this by mounting a crafted OCFS2 filesystem image or writing directly to the block device. Systems using OCFS2 for shared storage are particularly at risk if untrusted users have administrative access.

Mitigation Strategies

Apply the kernel patch that adds validation for rl_count and rl_used in refcount blocks. Ensure OCFS2 filesystem images are not corrupted. Restrict local access to systems with OCFS2 mounts. Update to a patched kernel version once available.

Chat Assistant

Ask questions about this CVE
Hi! I’m here to help you understand CVE-2026-89493. Ask me anything about the vulnerability, its impact, or mitigation strategies.
0/70

EPSS Chart