Skip to content

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been...

High severity Unreviewed Published May 27, 2026 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Jun 24, 2026

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ext4: fix dirtyclusters double decrement on fs shutdown

fstests test generic/388 occasionally reproduces a warning in
ext4_put_super() associated with the dirty clusters count:

WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 76064 at fs/ext4/super.c:1324 ext4_put_super+0x48c/0x590 [ext4]

Tracing the failure shows that the warning fires due to an
s_dirtyclusters_counter value of -1. IOW, this appears to be a
spurious decrement as opposed to some sort of leak. Further tracing
of the dirty cluster count deltas and an LLM scan of the resulting
output identified the cause as a double decrement in the error path
between ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used() and the caller
ext4_mb_new_blocks().

First, note that generic/388 is a shutdown vs. fsstress test and so
produces a random set of operations and shutdown injections. In the
problematic case, the shutdown triggers an error return from the
ext4_handle_dirty_metadata() call(s) made from
ext4_mb_mark_context(). The changed value is non-zero at this point,
so ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used() does not exit after the error
bubbles up from ext4_mb_mark_context(). Instead, the former
decrements both cluster counters and returns the error up to
ext4_mb_new_blocks(). The latter falls into the !ar->len out path
which decrements the dirty clusters counter a second time, creating
the inconsistency.

To avoid this problem and simplify ownership of the cluster
reservation in this codepath, lift the counter reduction to a single
place in the caller. This makes it more clear that
ext4_mb_new_blocks() is responsible for acquiring cluster
reservation (via ext4_claim_free_clusters()) in the !delalloc case
as well as releasing it, regardless of whether it ends up consumed
or returned due to failure.

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 27, 2026
Last updated Jun 24, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(4th percentile)

Weaknesses

Double Free

The product calls free() twice on the same memory address. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-45920

GHSA ID

GHSA-r62x-r6m8-28mx

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.