Strix
26.1K

CVE-2026-46066

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.12%

Last modified

CVE-2026-46066 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: fix num_ops off-by-one when crypto allocation fails move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() may fail if the file is encrypted, the dirty folio is not the first in the batch, and it fails to allocate a bounce buffer to hold the ciphertext. When that happens, ceph_process_folio_batch() simply redirties the folio and flushes the current batch -- it can retry that folio in a future batch. However, if this failed folio is not contiguous with the last folio that did make it into the batch, then ceph_process_folio_batch() has already incremented `ceph_wbc->num_ops`; because it doesn't follow through and add the discontiguous folio to the array, ceph_submit_write() -- which expects that `ceph_wbc->num_ops` accurately reflects the number of contiguous ranges (and therefore the required number of "write extent" ops) in the writeback -- will panic the kernel: BUG_ON(ceph_wbc->op_idx + 1 != req->r_num_ops); This issue can be reproduced on affected kernels by writing to fscrypt-enabled CephFS file(s) with a 4KiB-written/4KiB-skipped/repeat pattern (total filesize should not matter) and gradually increasing the system's memory pressure until a bounce buffer allocation fails. Fix this crash by decrementing `ceph_wbc->num_ops` back to the correct value when move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() fails, but the folio already started counting a new (i.e. EPSS estimates a 0.12% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: fix num_ops off-by-one when crypto allocation fails move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() may fail if the file is encrypted, the dirty folio is not the first in the batch, and it fails to allocate a bounce buffer to hold the ciphertext. When that happens, ceph_process_folio_batch() simply redirties the folio and flushes the current batch -- it can retry that folio in a future batch. However, if this failed folio is not contiguous with the last folio that did make it into the batch, then ceph_process_folio_batch() has already incremented `ceph_wbc->num_ops`; because it doesn't follow through and add the discontiguous folio to the array, ceph_submit_write() -- which expects that `ceph_wbc->num_ops` accurately reflects the number of contiguous ranges (and therefore the required number of "write extent" ops) in the writeback -- will panic the kernel: BUG_ON(ceph_wbc->op_idx + 1 != req->r_num_ops); This issue can be reproduced on affected kernels by writing to fscrypt-enabled CephFS file(s) with a 4KiB-written/4KiB-skipped/repeat pattern (total filesize should not matter) and gradually increasing the system's memory pressure until a bounce buffer allocation fails. Fix this crash by decrementing `ceph_wbc->num_ops` back to the correct value when move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() fails, but the folio already started counting a new (i.e. still-empty) extent. The defect corrected by this patch has existed since 2022 (see first `Fixes:`), but another bug blocked multi-folio encrypted writeback until recently (see second `Fixes:`). The second commit made it into 6.18.16, 6.19.6, and 7.0-rc1, unmasking the panic in those versions. This patch therefore fixes a regression (panic) introduced by cac190c7674f.

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
5.5/10

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS Probability
0.12%

2.2th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.6, < 6.18.30
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.19, < 7.0.4

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Undergoing Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-46066?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: fix num_ops off-by-one when crypto allocation fails move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() may fail if the file is encrypted, the dirty folio is not the first in the batch, and it fails to allocate a bounce buffer to hold the ciphertext. When that happens, ceph_process_folio_batch() simply redirties the folio and flushes the current batch -- it can retry that folio in a future batch. However, if this failed folio is not contiguous with the last folio that did make it into the batch, then ceph_process_folio_batch() has already incremented `ceph_wbc->num_ops`; because it doesn't follow through and add the discontiguous folio to the array, ceph_submit_write() -- which expects that `ceph_wbc->num_ops` accurately reflects the number of contiguous ranges (and therefore the required number of "write extent" ops) in the writeback -- will panic the kernel: BUG_ON(ceph_wbc->op_idx + 1 != req->r_num_ops); This issue can be reproduced on affected kernels by writing to fscrypt-enabled CephFS file(s) with a 4KiB-written/4KiB-skipped/repeat pattern (total filesize should not matter) and gradually increasing the system's memory pressure until a bounce buffer allocation fails. Fix this crash by decrementing `ceph_wbc->num_ops` back to the correct value when move_dirty_folio_in_page_array() fails, but the folio already started counting a new (i.e. still-empty) extent. The defect corrected by this patch has existed since 2022 (see first `Fixes:`), but another bug blocked multi-folio encrypted writeback until recently (see second `Fixes:`). The second commit made it into 6.18.16, 6.19.6, and 7.0-rc1, unmasking the panic in those versions. This patch therefore fixes a regression (panic) introduced by cac190c7674f.
How severe is CVE-2026-46066?
CVE-2026-46066 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.12% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2026-46066?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

Are you affected by CVE-2026-46066?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST