In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: fix use-after-free of nilfs_root in dirtying inodes via iput
During unmount process of nilfs2, nothing holds nilfs_root structure after
nilfs2 detaches its writer in nilfs_detach_log_writer(). Previously,
nilfs_evict_inode() could cause use-after-free read for nilfs_root if
inodes are left in "garbage_list" and released by nilfs_dispose_list at
the end of nilfs_detach_log_writer(), and this bug was fixed by commit
9b5a04ac3ad9 ("nilfs2: fix use-after-free bug of nilfs_root in
nilfs_evict_inode()").
However, it turned out that there is another possibility of UAF in the
call path where mark_inode_dirty_sync() is called from iput():
nilfs_detach_log_writer()
nilfs_dispose_list()
iput()
mark_inode_dirty_sync()
__mark_inode_dirty()
nilfs_dirty_inode()
__nilfs_mark_inode_dirty()
nilfs_load_inode_block() --> causes UAF of nilfs_root struct
This can happen after commit 0ae45f63d4ef ("vfs: add support for a
lazytime mount option"), which changed iput() to call
mark_inode_dirty_sync() on its final reference if i_state has I_DIRTY_TIME
flag and i_nlink is non-zero.
This issue appears after commit 28a65b49eb53 ("nilfs2: do not write dirty
data after degenerating to read-only") when using the syzbot reproducer,
but the issue has potentially existed before.
Fix this issue by adding a "purging flag" to the nilfs structure, setting
that flag while disposing the "garbage_list" and checking it in
__nilfs_mark_inode_dirty().
Unlike commit 9b5a04ac3ad9 ("nilfs2: fix use-after-free bug of nilfs_root
in nilfs_evict_inode()"), this patch does not rely on ns_writer to
determine whether to skip operations, so as not to break recovery on
mount. The nilfs_salvage_orphan_logs routine dirties the buffer of
salvaged data before attaching the log writer, so changing
__nilfs_mark_inode_dirty() to skip the operation when ns_writer is NULL
will cause recovery write to fail. The purpose of using the cleanup-only
flag is to allow for narrowing of such conditions.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-20). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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