CVE-2026-23233
Vulnerability Scoring
Status: Awaiting Analysis
Published on: 04 Mar 2026, 15:16 UTC
CVSS Release:
CVE-2026-23233: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: f2fs: fix to avoid mapping wrong physical block for swapfile Xiaolong Guo reported a f2fs bug in bugzilla [1] [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220951 Quoted: "When using stress-ng's swap stress test on F2FS filesystem with kernel 6.6+, the system experiences data corruption leading to either: 1 dm-verity corruption errors and device reboot 2 F2FS node corruption errors and boot hangs The issue occurs specifically when: 1 Using F2FS filesystem (ext4 is unaffected) 2 Swapfile size is less than F2FS section size (2MB) 3 Swapfile has fragmented physical layout (multiple non-contiguous extents) 4 Kernel version is 6.6+ (6.1 is unaffected) The root cause is in check_swap_activate() function in fs/f2fs/data.c. When the first extent of a small swapfile (< 2MB) is not aligned to section boundaries, the function incorrectly treats it as the last extent, failing to map subsequent extents. This results in incorrect swap_extent creation where only the first extent is mapped, causing subsequent swap writes to overwrite wrong physical locations (other files' data). Steps to Reproduce 1 Setup a device with F2FS-formatted userdata partition 2 Compile stress-ng from https://github.com/ColinIanKing/stress-ng 3 Run swap stress test: (Android devices) adb shell "cd /data/stressng; ./stress-ng-64 --metrics-brief --timeout 60 --swap 0" Log: 1 Ftrace shows in kernel 6.6, only first extent is mapped during second f2fs_map_blocks call in check_swap_activate(): stress-ng-swap-8990: f2fs_map_blocks: ino=11002, file offset=0, start blkaddr=0x43143, len=0x1 (Only 4KB mapped, not the full swapfile) 2 in kernel 6.1, both extents are correctly mapped: stress-ng-swap-5966: f2fs_map_blocks: ino=28011, file offset=0, start blkaddr=0x13cd4, len=0x1 stress-ng-swap-5966: f2fs_map_blocks: ino=28011, file offset=1, start blkaddr=0x60c84b, len=0xff The problematic code is in check_swap_activate(): if ((pblock - SM_I(sbi)->main_blkaddr) % blks_per_sec || nr_pblocks % blks_per_sec || !f2fs_valid_pinned_area(sbi, pblock)) { bool last_extent = false; not_aligned++; nr_pblocks = roundup(nr_pblocks, blks_per_sec); if (cur_lblock + nr_pblocks > sis->max) nr_pblocks -= blks_per_sec; /* this extent is last one */ if (!nr_pblocks) { nr_pblocks = last_lblock - cur_lblock; last_extent = true; } ret = f2fs_migrate_blocks(inode, cur_lblock, nr_pblocks); if (ret) { if (ret == -ENOENT) ret = -EINVAL; goto out; } if (!last_extent) goto retry; } When the first extent is unaligned and roundup(nr_pblocks, blks_per_sec) exceeds sis->max, we subtract blks_per_sec resulting in nr_pblocks = 0. The code then incorrectly assumes this is the last extent, sets nr_pblocks = last_lblock - cur_lblock (entire swapfile), and performs migration. After migration, it doesn't retry mapping, so subsequent extents are never processed. " In order to fix this issue, we need to lookup block mapping info after we migrate all blocks in the tail of swapfile.
The exploitability of CVE-2026-23233 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-23233.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-23233, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-23233, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
Unknown
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.