CVE-2026-45942

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix e4b bitmap inconsistency reports A bitmap inconsistency issue was observed during stress tests under mixed huge-page workloads. Ext4 reported multiple e4b bitmap check failures like: ext4_mb_complex_scan_group:2508: group 350, 8179 free clusters as per group info. But got 8192 blocks Analysis and experimentation confirmed that the issue is caused by a race condition between page migration and bitmap modification. Although this timing window is extremely narrow, it is still hit in practice: folio_lock ext4_mb_load_buddy __migrate_folio check ref count folio_mc_copy __filemap_get_folio folio_try_get(folio) ...... mb_mark_used ext4_mb_unload_buddy __folio_migrate_mapping folio_ref_freeze folio_unlock The root cause of this issue is that the fast path of load_buddy only increments the folio's reference count, which is insufficient to prevent concurrent folio migration. We observed that the folio migration process acquires the folio lock. Therefore, we can determine whether to take the fast path in load_buddy by checking the lock status. If the folio is locked, we opt for the slow path (which acquires the lock) to close this concurrency window. Additionally, this change addresses the following issues: When the DOUBLE_CHECK macro is enabled to inspect bitmap-related issues, the following error may be triggered: corruption in group 324 at byte 784(6272): f in copy != ff on disk/prealloc Analysis reveals that this is a false positive. There is a specific race window where the bitmap and the group descriptor become momentarily inconsistent, leading to this error report: ext4_mb_load_buddy ext4_mb_load_buddy __filemap_get_folio(create|lock) folio_lock ext4_mb_init_cache folio_mark_uptodate __filemap_get_folio(no lock) ...... mb_mark_used mb_mark_used_double mb_cmp_bitmaps mb_set_bits(e4b->bd_bitmap) folio_unlock The original logic assumed that since mb_cmp_bitmaps is called when the bitmap is newly loaded from disk, the folio lock would be sufficient to prevent concurrent access. However, this overlooks a specific race condition: if another process attempts to load buddy and finds the folio is already in an uptodate state, it will immediately begin using it without holding folio lock.

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.1% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

1. 2026-05-27 14:17 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
2. 2026-10-30 13:18 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.1% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
• Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.

Details

Published

2026-05-27 14:17 UTC

Last modified

2026-10-30 13:18 UTC

Exploit probability

0.1% · EPSS, next 30 days

Weakness

CWE-362 · Race condition

Record status

Undergoing Analysis

Affected

• Linux Kernel < 6.6.130
• Linux Kernel < 6.12.75
• Linux Kernel < 6.18.14
• Linux Kernel < 6.19.4

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8

Attack vector

Local

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-45942.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-45942. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge