In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: decrease sc_count directly if fail to queue dl_recall
A deadlock warning occurred when invoking nfs4_put_stid following a failed
dl_recall queue operation:
T1 T2
nfs4_laundromat
nfs4_get_client_reaplist
nfs4_anylock_blockers
__break_lease
spin_lock // ctx->flc_lock
spin_lock // clp->cl_lock
nfs4_lockowner_has_blockers
locks_owner_has_blockers
spin_lock // flctx->flc_lock
nfsd_break_deleg_cb
nfsd_break_one_deleg
nfs4_put_stid
refcount_dec_and_lock
spin_lock // clp->cl_lock
When a file is opened, an nfs4_delegation is allocated with sc_count
initialized to 1, and the file_lease holds a reference to the delegation.
The file_lease is then associated with the file through kernel_setlease.
The disassociation is performed in nfsd4_delegreturn via the following
call chain:
nfsd4_delegreturn --> destroy_delegation --> destroy_unhashed_deleg -->
nfs4_unlock_deleg_lease --> kernel_setlease --> generic_delete_lease
The corresponding sc_count reference will be released after this
disassociation.
Since nfsd_break_one_deleg executes while holding the flc_lock, the
disassociation process becomes blocked when attempting to acquire flc_lock
in generic_delete_lease. This means:
1) sc_count in nfsd_break_one_deleg will not be decremented to 0;
2) The nfs4_put_stid called by nfsd_break_one_deleg will not attempt to
acquire cl_lock;
3) Consequently, no deadlock condition is created.
Given that sc_count in nfsd_break_one_deleg remains non-zero, we can
safely perform refcount_dec on sc_count directly. This approach
effectively avoids triggering deadlock warnings.
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
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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