<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:11:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2026-64059 — netfs: Fix folio-&gt;private handling in netfs_perform_write()</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-64059</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;netfs: Fix folio-&amp;gt;private handling in netfs_perform_write()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under some circumstances, netfs_perform_write() doesn&amp;#39;t correctly
manipulate folio-&amp;gt;private between NULL, NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, pointing
to a group and pointing to a netfs_folio struct, leading to potential
multiple attachments of private data with associated folio ref leaks and
also leaks of netfs_folio structs or netfs_group refs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fix this by consolidating the place at which a folio is marked uptodate in
one place and having that look at what&amp;#39;s attached to folio-&amp;gt;private and
decide how to clean it up and then set the new group.  Also, the content
shouldn&amp;#39;t be flushed if group is NULL, even if a group is specified in the
netfs_group parameter, as that would be the case for a new folio.  A
filesystem should always specify netfs_group or never specify netfs_group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Sashiko auto-review tool noted that it was theoretically possible that
the fpos &amp;gt;= ctx-&amp;gt;zero_point section might leak if it modified a streaming
write folio.  This is unlikely, but with a network filesystem, third party
changes can happen.  It also pointed out that __netfs_set_group() would
leak if called multiple times on the same folio from the &amp;#34;whole folio
modify section&amp;#34;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;netfs: Fix folio-&amp;gt;private handling in netfs_perform_write()&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under some circumstances, netfs_perform_write() doesn&amp;#39;t correctly
manipulate folio-&amp;gt;private between NULL, NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, pointing
to a group and pointing to a netfs_folio struct, leading to potential
multiple attachments of private data with associated folio ref leaks and
also leaks of netfs_folio structs or netfs_group refs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fix this by consolidating the place at which a folio is marked uptodate in
one place and having that look at what&amp;#39;s attached to folio-&amp;gt;private and
decide how to clean it up and then set the new group.  Also, the content
shouldn&amp;#39;t be flushed if group is NULL, even if a group is specified in the
netfs_group parameter, as that would be the case for a new folio.  A
filesystem should always specify netfs_group or never specify netfs_group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Sashiko auto-review tool noted that it was theoretically possible that
the fpos &amp;gt;= ctx-&amp;gt;zero_point section might leak if it modified a streaming
write folio.  This is unlikely, but with a network filesystem, third party
changes can happen.  It also pointed out that __netfs_set_group() would
leak if called multiple times on the same folio from the &amp;#34;whole folio
modify section&amp;#34;.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-64059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
