data built 2026-10-19T13:16:53Z

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-90096 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-90096

fuse: invalidate the correct range after O_APPEND direct write

EPSS 0.2%

Published 2026-09-17 (31 days ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem fs/fuse. Debian urgency: unimportant.

What to do, per Debian release

Debian's own status for CVE-2026-90096 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source

ReleaseStatus VersionWhat this means
Debian 12bookwormnot affected6.1.190-1Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code.
Debian 13trixienot affected6.12.113-1Nothing to do. trixie never shipped the vulnerable code.
Debian 14forkynot affected7.2.11-1Nothing to do. forky never shipped the vulnerable code.
Debian unstablesidnot affected7.2.11-1Nothing to do. sid never shipped the vulnerable code.

The vulnerability

What the bug is

fuse_direct_write_iter() captures pos before generic_write_checks(), which moves ki_pos to EOF for O_APPEND writes: fuse_direct_write_iter() { pos = iocb->ki_pos; /* 0 (user-supplied) */ generic_write_checks(); /* ki_pos -> EOF */ fuse_direct_io(); /* writes at EOF, correct */ invalidate(pos, pos + res); /* [0, res) -- wrong */ } The post-write invalidation targets a stale range instead of the actual written range at EOF. This can cause data inconsistency when the file size is not page-aligned. The tail page straddling EOF has a valid portion before EOF that concurrent readers can fault back in during the DIO write window: Tail page (file size X not page-aligned): page_start X (EOF) page_end |--- valid data ----|-- stale --| CPU0 (O_APPEND DIO writer) CPU1 (buffered reader) -------------------------- ---------------------- invalidate [X, X+len) tail page evicted FUSE_WRITE in flight ... read [page_start, X) tail page re-faulted [X, page_end) = stale FUSE_WRITE completes i_size = X + len invalidate [0, len) <- WRONG tail page still cached read [X, X+len) hits stale tail page returns old data Fix by reading pos back from iocb->ki_pos after generic_write_checks(), as generic_file_direct_write() does. Also fix a typo in the comment ("may have" -> "may have competed").

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

fs/fuse/file.c

What this is
FUSE FILESYSTEM [CORE]MAINTAINERS section matched on fs/fuse/ · fuse-devel@lists.linux.dev · Supported
Kernel module
fuse

Check it on the machine

grep -w CONFIG_FUSE_FS /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

lsmod | grep -w fuse

Prints a line if that module is loaded right now, and nothing if it is not. One that is not loaded can still be loaded later by anything that needs it.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this code. Every release below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships.

  • bookwormm
  • trixie, forky, sidy
m
a loadable module on every flavour - check lsmod, can be blacklisted
y
built into the kernel image on every flavour - only a patch removes it
Build switch
CONFIG_FUSE_FS

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published
2026-09-17 (31 days ago)source
CVSS
no vector published, unrated
Attack vector
not published
EPSS
0.20%, higher than 8.9% of all CVEssource
CISA KEV
not listedthe KEV catalogue
Debian urgency
unimportantsource
Subsystem
fs/fuse

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

IntroducedFixed inCommit
7.27.2.6833963069adf
7.27.326d7e1f5c407

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-90096, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.