Full List

Search

Recent Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-43068 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: avoid allocate block from corrupted group in ext4_mb_find_by_goal() There's issue as follows: ... EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2243 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2239 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): error count since last fsck: 1 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): initial error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): last error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760 ... According to the log analysis, blocks are always requested from the corrupted block group. This may happen as follows: ext4_mb_find_by_goal ext4_mb_load_buddy ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp ext4_mb_init_cache ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait ext4_wait_block_bitmap ext4_validate_block_bitmap if (!grp || EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(grp)) return -EFSCORRUPTED; // There's no logs. if (err) return err; // Will return error ext4_lock_group(ac-ac_sb, group); if (unlikely(EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info))) // Unreachable goto out; After commit 9008a58e5dce ("ext4: make the bitmap read routines return real error codes") merged, Commit 163a203ddb36 ("ext4: mark block group as corrupt on block bitmap error") is no real solution for allocating blocks from corrupted block groups. This is because if 'EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info)' is true, then 'ext4_mb_load_buddy()' may return an error. This means that the block allocation will fail. Therefore, check block group if corrupted when ext4_mb_load_buddy() returns error.
• CVE-2026-43068 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: avoid allocate block from corrupted group in ext4_mb_find_by_goal() There's issue as follows: ... EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2243 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2239 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): error count since last fsck: 1 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): initial error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): last error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760 ... According to the log analysis, blocks are always requested from the corrupted block group. This may happen as follows: ext4_mb_find_by_goal ext4_mb_load_buddy ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp ext4_mb_init_cache ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait ext4_wait_block_bitmap ext4_validate_block_bitmap if (!grp || EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(grp)) return -EFSCORRUPTED; // There's no logs. if (err) return err; // Will return error ext4_lock_group(ac-ac_sb, group); if (unlikely(EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info))) // Unreachable goto out; After commit 9008a58e5dce ("ext4: make the bitmap read routines return real error codes") merged, Commit 163a203ddb36 ("ext4: mark block group as corrupt on block bitmap error") is no real solution for allocating blocks from corrupted block groups. This is because if 'EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info)' is true, then 'ext4_mb_load_buddy()' may return an error. This means that the block allocation will fail. Therefore, check block group if corrupted when ext4_mb_load_buddy() returns error.
• CVE-2026-43068 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: avoid allocate block from corrupted group in ext4_mb_find_by_goal() There's issue as follows: ... EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2243 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2239 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): error count since last fsck: 1 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): initial error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760 EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): last error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760 ... According to the log analysis, blocks are always requested from the corrupted block group. This may happen as follows: ext4_mb_find_by_goal ext4_mb_load_buddy ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp ext4_mb_init_cache ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait ext4_wait_block_bitmap ext4_validate_block_bitmap if (!grp || EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(grp)) return -EFSCORRUPTED; // There's no logs. if (err) return err; // Will return error ext4_lock_group(ac-ac_sb, group); if (unlikely(EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info))) // Unreachable goto out; After commit 9008a58e5dce ("ext4: make the bitmap read routines return real error codes") merged, Commit 163a203ddb36 ("ext4: mark block group as corrupt on block bitmap error") is no real solution for allocating blocks from corrupted block groups. This is because if 'EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info)' is true, then 'ext4_mb_load_buddy()' may return an error. This means that the block allocation will fail. Therefore, check block group if corrupted when ext4_mb_load_buddy() returns error.
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().
• CVE-2026-43067 • published on May 5, 2026 In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: handle wraparound when searching for blocks for indirect mapped blocks Commit 4865c768b563 ("ext4: always allocate blocks only from groups inode can use") restricts what blocks will be allocated for indirect block based files to block numbers that fit within 32-bit block numbers. However, when using a review bot running on the latest Gemini LLM to check this commit when backporting into an LTS based kernel, it raised this concern: If ac-ac_g_ex.fe_group is >= ngroups (for instance, if the goal group was populated via stream allocation from s_mb_last_groups), then start will be >= ngroups. Does this allow allocating blocks beyond the 32-bit limit for indirect block mapped files? The commit message mentions that ext4_mb_scan_groups_linear() takes care to not select unsupported groups. However, its loop uses group = *start, and the very first iteration will call ext4_mb_scan_group() with this unsupported group because next_linear_group() is only called at the end of the iteration. After reviewing the code paths involved and considering the LLM review, I determined that this can happen when there is a file system where some files/directories are extent-mapped and others are indirect-block mapped. To address this, add a safety clamp in ext4_mb_scan_groups().