CVE-2026-43118 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-43118
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2026-43118 Details

Status: Received on 06 May 2026, 10:16 UTC

Published on: 06 May 2026, 10:16 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-43118 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-43118: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix zero size inode with non-zero size after log replay When logging that an inode exists, as part of logging a new name or logging new dir entries for a directory, we always set the generation of the logged inode item to 0. This is to signal during log replay (in overwrite_item()), that we should not set the i_size since we only logged that an inode exists, so the i_size of the inode in the subvolume tree must be preserved (as when we log new names or that an inode exists, we don't log extents). This works fine except when we have already logged an inode in full mode or it's the first time we are logging an inode created in a past transaction, that inode has a new i_size of 0 and then we log a new name for the inode (due to a new hardlink or a rename), in which case we log an i_size of 0 for the inode and a generation of 0, which causes the log replay code to not update the inode's i_size to 0 (in overwrite_item()). An example scenario: mkdir /mnt/dir xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 64K" /mnt/dir/foo sync xfs_io -c "truncate 0" -c "fsync" /mnt/dir/foo ln /mnt/dir/foo /mnt/dir/bar xfs_io -c "fsync" /mnt/dir <power fail> After log replay the file remains with a size of 64K. This is because when we first log the inode, when we fsync file foo, we log its current i_size of 0, and then when we create a hard link we log again the inode in exists mode (LOG_INODE_EXISTS) but we set a generation of 0 for the inode item we add to the log tree, so during log replay overwrite_item() sees that the generation is 0 and i_size is 0 so we skip updating the inode's i_size from 64K to 0. Fix this by making sure at fill_inode_item() we always log the real generation of the inode if it was logged in the current transaction with the i_size we logged before. Also if an inode created in a previous transaction is logged in exists mode only, make sure we log the i_size stored in the inode item located from the commit root, so that if we log multiple times that the inode exists we get the correct i_size. A test case for fstests will follow soon.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-43118

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-43118 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).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2026-43118

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-43118.

Understanding AC and PR

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.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-43118, 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.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-43118, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2026-43118 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-43118 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-43118 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-43118 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-43118: Combat Critical CVE Threats

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.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2026-6420 – A flaw was found in Keylime. An attacker with root access on an enrolled monitored machine, where the Keylime agent runs, can exploit a vulnerabili...
  • CVE-2025-59854 – HCL DFXAnalytics is affected by an Insecure Security Header Configuration vulnerability where the application utilizes the outdated X-XSS-Protectio...
  • CVE-2025-59853 – HCL DFXAnalytics is affected by an Improper Error Handling vulnerability where the application exposes detailed stack traces in responses, which co...
  • CVE-2025-59852 – HCL DFXAnalytics is affected by an Insufficient Transport Layer Protection vulnerability where data is transmitted over the network without encry...
  • CVE-2025-59851 – HCL DFXAnalytics is affected by a Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities flaw where the application utilizes unpatched libraries or sub-compon...