CVE-2026-45943 : Detail

CVE-2026-45943

7.1
/
High
Overflow
0.02%V4
Local
2026-05-27
14h17 +00:00
2026-06-24
17h09 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: erofs: fix inline data read failure for ztailpacking pclusters Compressed folios for ztailpacking pclusters must be valid before adding these pclusters to I/O chains. Otherwise, z_erofs_decompress_pcluster() may assume they are already valid and then trigger a NULL pointer dereference. It is somewhat hard to reproduce because the inline data is in the same block as the tail of the compressed indexes, which are usually read just before. However, it may still happen if a fatal signal arrives while read_mapping_folio() is running, as shown below: erofs: (device dm-1): z_erofs_pcluster_begin: failed to get inline data -4 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008 ... pc : z_erofs_decompress_queue+0x4c8/0xa14 lr : z_erofs_decompress_queue+0x160/0xa14 sp : ffffffc08b3eb3a0 x29: ffffffc08b3eb570 x28: ffffffc08b3eb418 x27: 0000000000001000 x26: ffffff8086ebdbb8 x25: ffffff8086ebdbb8 x24: 0000000000000001 x23: 0000000000000008 x22: 00000000fffffffb x21: dead000000000700 x20: 00000000000015e7 x19: ffffff808babb400 x18: ffffffc089edc098 x17: 00000000c006287d x16: 00000000c006287d x15: 0000000000000004 x14: ffffff80ba8f8000 x13: 0000000000000004 x12: 00000006589a77c9 x11: 0000000000000015 x10: 0000000000000000 x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 000000000000003f x5 : 0000000000000040 x4 : ffffffffffffffe0 x3 : 0000000000000020 x2 : 0000000000000008 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 Call trace: z_erofs_decompress_queue+0x4c8/0xa14 z_erofs_runqueue+0x908/0x97c z_erofs_read_folio+0x128/0x228 filemap_read_folio+0x68/0x128 filemap_get_pages+0x44c/0x8b4 filemap_read+0x12c/0x5b8 generic_file_read_iter+0x4c/0x15c do_iter_readv_writev+0x188/0x1e0 vfs_iter_read+0xac/0x1a4 backing_file_read_iter+0x170/0x34c ovl_read_iter+0xf0/0x140 vfs_read+0x28c/0x344 ksys_read+0x80/0xf0 __arm64_sys_read+0x24/0x34 invoke_syscall+0x60/0x114 el0_svc_common+0x88/0xe4 do_el0_svc+0x24/0x30 el0_svc+0x40/0xa8 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x70/0xbc el0t_64_sync+0x1bc/0x1c0 Fix this by reading the inline data before allocating and adding the pclusters to the I/O chains.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.1 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.17 To (excluding) 6.12.78

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.19 To (excluding) 6.19.4

References