Bug 2502497 (CVE-2026-64059) - CVE-2026-64059 kernel: netfs: Fix folio->private handling in netfs_perform_write()
Summary: CVE-2026-64059 kernel: netfs: Fix folio->private handling in netfs_perform_wr...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2026-64059
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability-draft
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-07-19 17:02 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-10-12 14:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-07-19 17:02:36 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

netfs: Fix folio->private handling in netfs_perform_write()

Under some circumstances, netfs_perform_write() doesn't correctly
manipulate folio->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.

Fix this by consolidating the place at which a folio is marked uptodate in
one place and having that look at what's attached to folio->private and
decide how to clean it up and then set the new group.  Also, the content
shouldn'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.

The Sashiko auto-review tool noted that it was theoretically possible that
the fpos >= ctx->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 "whole folio
modify section".


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.