CVE-2026-23238
Linux Kernel 2.6.12.1 – 5.10.251
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-23238 is a medium-severity Reachable Assertion (CWE-617) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 9th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-9410
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: romfs: check sb_set_blocksize() return value romfs_fill_super() ignores the return value of sb_set_blocksize(), which can fail if the requested block size is incompatible with the block device's configuration. This can be…
more
triggered by setting a loop device's block size larger than PAGE_SIZE using ioctl(LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE, 32768), then mounting a romfs filesystem on that device. When sb_set_blocksize(sb, ROMBSIZE) is called with ROMBSIZE=4096 but the device has logical_block_size=32768, bdev_validate_blocksize() fails because the requested size is smaller than the device's logical block size. sb_set_blocksize() returns 0 (failure), but romfs ignores this and continues mounting. The superblock's block size remains at the device's logical block size (32768). Later, when sb_bread() attempts I/O with this oversized block size, it triggers a kernel BUG in folio_set_bh(): kernel BUG at fs/buffer.c:1582! BUG_ON(size > PAGE_SIZE); Fix by checking the return value of sb_set_blocksize() and failing the mount with -EINVAL if it returns 0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent unsafe assertions from being coded in reachable paths.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect reachable assertions before release, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Secure development lifecycle mandates defensive coding and input validation that prevent reachable assertions from being triggered by untrusted data.
Application security requirements can specify that assertions must not be reachable from attacker-controlled inputs.
Secure architecture principles discourage the use of assertions for runtime error handling that an attacker could exploit.
Secure coding standards explicitly ban the use of assert() or equivalent statements that can be triggered by external input.