In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hfsplus: fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create
When sync() and link() are called concurrently, both threads may
enter hfs_bnode_find() without finding the node in the hash table
and proceed to create it.
Thread A:
hfsplus_write_inode()
-> hfsplus_write_system_inode()
-> hfs_btree_write()
-> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0)
-> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0)
Thread B:
hfsplus_create_cat()
-> hfs_brec_insert()
-> hfs_bnode_split()
-> hfs_bmap_alloc()
-> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0)
-> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0)
In this case, thread A creates the bnode, sets refcnt=1, and hashes it.
Thread B also tries to create the same bnode, notices it has already
been inserted, drops its own instance, and uses the hashed one without
getting the node.
node2 = hfs_bnode_findhash(tree, cnid);
if (!node2) { <- Thread A
hash = hfs_bnode_hash(cnid);
node->next_hash = tree->node_hash[hash];
tree->node_hash[hash] = node;
tree->node_hash_cnt++;
} else { <- Thread B
spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
kfree(node);
wait_event(node2->lock_wq,
!test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node2->flags));
return node2;
}
However, hfs_bnode_find() requires each call to take a reference.
Here both threads end up setting refcnt=1. When they later put the node,
this triggers:
BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&node->refcnt))
In this scenario, Thread B in fact finds the node in the hash table
rather than creating a new one, and thus must take a reference.
Fix this by calling hfs_bnode_get() when reusing a bnode newly created by
another thread to ensure the refcount is updated correctly.
A similar bug was fixed in HFS long ago in commit
a9dc087fd3c4 ("fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create")
but the same issue remained in HFS+ until now.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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