Medium [CVE-2026-72354] avoid stale runlist element dereference in MFT writeback
This medium-severity Red Hat Linux advisory covers CVE-2026-72354.
Android app · Google Play
Monitor future Red Hat Linux CVEs from your phone.
Choose a whole vendor or a precise platform, then receive matching security advisories by phone notification, email, or both. Coverage follows 32 official vendor sources and 160+ reviewed platform categories.
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: avoid stale runlist element dereference in MFT writeback ntfs_write_mft_block() maps each $MFT record through the $MFT data runlist.
For sub-folio clusters it looks up a struct runlist_element under ni->runlist.lock, drops the lock, and later uses rl->length and rl->vcn when choosing folio_sz. That pointer is only borrowed from ni->runlist.rl.
Concurrent $MFT allocation extension can merge a replacement runlist under the same lock, and ntfs_rl_realloc() can free the old backing array. If that happens between the lookup and the later folio_sz decision, writeback can dereference freed runlist storage.
The buggy scenario involves two paths, with each column showing the order within that path: MFT writeback path: $MFT allocation extension: 1. Look up rl under 1.
2. 3.
Compute the remaining run length while ni->runlist.lock is still held, and use that scalar after unlock. This preserves the existing folio sizing decision without carrying a borrowed runlist_element across the lock boundary.
Affected versions
No affected-version range was extracted from the source record. The vendor advisory is authoritative — check it before change work.
Official advisory · medium-confidence parse· fetched 56 minutes ago·verify at source
Fixed versions
No fixed release is recorded yet. That does not prove no patch exists — confirm against the vendor advisory.
Official advisory · medium-confidence parse· fetched 56 minutes ago·verify at source
Mitigation
The source record does not include mitigation steps. That is not a statement that no fix exists — read the vendor advisory below for the authoritative guidance.
Official advisory · medium-confidence parse· fetched 56 minutes ago·verify at source
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Share field notes, upgrade gotchas, or questions — verify against the vendor advisory before acting on community advice.
Sign in to join the discussion.