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

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-92487 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-92487

exfat: fix valid_size extension over a shared writable mapping

EPSS 0.2%

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

What to do, per Debian release

Debian's own status for CVE-2026-92487 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

When a shared writable mapping has its valid_size extended by a buffered write or a page fault, exfat zeroes the page-cache gap below the new valid_size. A store through the mapping can race with this zeroing and be overwritten. Fix this by zeroing the gap lazily. Drop ->map_pages so that every first write fault goes through exfat_page_mkwrite(), which advances valid_size to cover the faulting page. With fault-around enabled, a store could install a writable PTE, skip ->page_mkwrite(), and land past valid_size without advancing it. Extending valid_size one faulting page at a time also leaves never-written pages in a large mapping alone. The gap is filled with block granularity, zeroing only the not-uptodate blocks and preserving blocks that may hold data stored through the mapping. On the buffered-write path the invalidate lock is held and the gap is unmapped before zeroing, so a racing store re-faults and, under the inode lock, completes only after the gap has been zeroed and valid_size covers it.

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/exfat/exfat_fs.h
fs/exfat/file.c
fs/exfat/iomap.c

What this is
EXFAT FILE SYSTEMMAINTAINERS section matched on fs/exfat/ · linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org · Maintained
Kernel module
exfat

Check it on the machine

grep -w CONFIG_EXFAT_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 exfat

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 as a loadable module. Every release below compiles it as a module on every flavour, so whether the code is in the running kernel depends on whether that module is loaded.

  • bookworm, trixie, forky, sidm
m
a loadable module on every flavour - check lsmod, can be blacklisted
Build switch
CONFIG_EXFAT_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/exfat

Upstream fixes

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

IntroducedFixed inCommit
7.27.2.624f20986b253
7.27.31135704ed22f

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-92487, 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.