In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fscache: Use wait_on_bit() to wait for the freeing of relinquished volume
The freeing of relinquished volume will wake up the pending volume
acquisition by using wake_up_bit(), however it is mismatched with
wait_var_event() used in fscache_wait_on_volume_collision() and it will
never wake up the waiter in the wait-queue because these two functions
operate on different wait-queues.
According to the implementation in fscache_wait_on_volume_collision(),
if the wake-up of pending acquisition is delayed longer than 20 seconds
(e.g., due to the delay of on-demand fd closing), the first
wait_var_event_timeout() will timeout and the following wait_var_event()
will hang forever as shown below:
FS-Cache: Potential volume collision new=00000024 old=00000022
......
INFO: task mount:1148 blocked for more than 122 seconds.
Not tainted 6.1.0-rc6+ #1
task:mount state:D stack:0 pid:1148 ppid:1
Call Trace:
__schedule+0x2f6/0xb80
schedule+0x67/0xe0
fscache_wait_on_volume_collision.cold+0x80/0x82
__fscache_acquire_volume+0x40d/0x4e0
erofs_fscache_register_volume+0x51/0xe0 [erofs]
erofs_fscache_register_fs+0x19c/0x240 [erofs]
erofs_fc_fill_super+0x746/0xaf0 [erofs]
vfs_get_super+0x7d/0x100
get_tree_nodev+0x16/0x20
erofs_fc_get_tree+0x20/0x30 [erofs]
vfs_get_tree+0x24/0xb0
path_mount+0x2fa/0xa90
do_mount+0x7c/0xa0
__x64_sys_mount+0x8b/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0x30/0x60
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
Considering that wake_up_bit() is more selective, so fix it by using
wait_on_bit() instead of wait_var_event() to wait for the freeing of
relinquished volume. In addition because waitqueue_active() is used in
wake_up_bit() and clear_bit() doesn't imply any memory barrier, use
clear_and_wake_up_bit() to add the missing memory barrier between
cursor->flags and waitqueue_active().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it