CVE-2026-45858
is CVE-2026-45858real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Low signal — verdict needed
Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: don't zero the entire extent if EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1 When allocating initialized blocks from a large unwritten extent, or when splitting an unwritten extent during end I/O and converting it to initialized, there is currently a potential issue of stale data if the extent needs to be split in the middle. 0 A B N [UUUUUUUUUUUU] U: unwritten extent [--DDDDDDDD--] D: valid data |<- ->| ----> this range needs to be initialized ext4_split_extent() first try to split this extent at B with EXT4_EXT_DATA_ENTIRE_VALID1 and EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT flag set, but ext4_split_extent_at() failed to split this extent due to temporary lack of space. It zeroout B to N and mark the entire extent from 0 to N as written. 0 A B N [WWWWWWWWWWWW] W: written extent [SSDDDDDDDDZZ] Z: zeroed, S: stale data ext4_split_extent() then try to split this extent at A with EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag set. This time, it split successfully and left a stale written extent from 0 to A. 0 A B N [WW|WWWWWWWWWW] [SS|DDDDDDDDZZ] Fix this by pass EXT4_EXT_DATA_PARTIAL_VALID1 to ext4_split_extent_at() when splitting at B, don't convert the entire extent to written and left it as unwritten after zeroing out B to N. The remaining work is just like the standard two-part split. ext4_split_extent() will pass the EXT4_EXT_DATA_VALID2 flag when it calls ext4_split_extent_at() for the second time, allowing it to properly handle the split. If the split is successful, it will keep extent from 0 to A as unwritten.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45858)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45858"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-45858/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-45858"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
0 verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.