Patchlage

CVE-2026-63796

CVE CVE-2026-63796EUVD EUVD-2026-45462Published 2026-07-19T12:02:04.000ZLast changed 2026-08-05T12:35:45.000ZCVSS 8.8

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ocfs2: reject oversized group bitmap descriptors ocfs2_validate_gd_parent() only bounds bg_bits against the parent allocator's chain geometry. A malicious descriptor can still claim a bg_size/bg_bits pair that exceeds the bitmap bytes that physically fit in the group descriptor block, so later bitmap scans and bit updates can run past bg_bitmap. Add a physical-cap check based on ocfs2_group_bitmap_size() for the parent allocator type and reject descriptors whose bg_size or bg_bits exceed that capacity. Keep the existing chain geometry check so both the on-disk bitmap layout and the allocator metadata must agree before the descriptor is used. Validation reproduced this kernel report: KASAN use-after-free in _find_next_bit+0x7f/0xc0 Read of size 8 Call trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x66/0xa0 (?:?) print_report+0xd0/0x630 (?:?) _find_next_bit+0x7f/0xc0 (?:?) srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5 (?:?) __virt_addr_valid+0x188/0x2f0 (?:?) kasan_report+0xe4/0x120 (?:?) ocfs2_find_max_contig_free_bits+0x35/0x70 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:1375) ocfs2_block_group_set_bits+0x472/0x4b0 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:1457) ocfs2_cluster_group_search+0x16b/0x440 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:86) ocfs2_bg_discontig_fix_result+0x1ef/0x230 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:1786) ocfs2_search_chain+0x8f8/0x10a0 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:1886) get_page_from_freelist+0x70e/0x2370 (?:?) lock_release+0xc6/0x290 (?:?) do_raw_spin_unlock+0x9a/0x100 (?:?) kasan_unpoison+0x27/0x60 (?:?) __bfs+0x147/0x240 (?:?) get_page_from_freelist+0x83d/0x2370 (?:?) ocfs2_claim_suballoc_bits+0x38c/0xe70 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:96) sched_domains_numa_masks_clear+0x70/0xd0 (?:?) check_irq_usage+0xe8/0xb70 (?:?) __ocfs2_claim_clusters+0x18d/0x4c0 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:2497) check_path+0x24/0x50 (?:?) rcu_is_watching+0x20/0x50 (?:?) check_prev_add+0xfd/0xd00 (?:?) ocfs2_add_clusters_in_btree+0x17d/0x810 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:?) __folio_batch_add_and_move+0x1f5/0x3d0 (?:?) ocfs2_add_inode_data+0xd9/0x120 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:?) filemap_add_folio+0x105/0x1f0 (?:?) ocfs2_write_begin_nolock+0x29f7/0x2f80 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:3043) ocfs2_read_inode_block+0xb5/0x110 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:?) down_write+0xf5/0x180 (?:?) ocfs2_write_begin+0x180/0x240 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:?) __mark_inode_dirty+0x758/0x9a0 (?:?) inode_to_bdi+0x41/0x90 (?:?) balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_flags+0xf8/0x1d0 (?:?) generic_perform_write+0x252/0x440 (?:?) mnt_put_write_access_file+0x16/0x70 (?:?) file_update_time_flags+0xe4/0x200 (?:?) ocfs2_file_write_iter+0x80a/0x1320 (fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:?) lock_acquire+0x184/0x2f0 (?:?) ksys_write+0xd2/0x170 (?:?) apparmor_file_permission+0xf5/0x310 (?:?) read_zero+0x8d/0x140 (?:?) lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100 (?:?)

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

Does this concern one of your customers?

This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.

Try it for 28 days

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.