In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dm cache metadata: fix memory leak on metadata abort retry
When failing to acquire the root_lock in dm_cache_metadata_abort because
the block_manager is read-only, the temporary block_manager created
outside the root_lock is not properly released, causing a memory leak.
Reproduce steps:
This can be reproduced by reloading a new table while the metadata
is read-only. While the second call to dm_cache_metadata_abort is
caused by lack of support for table preload in dm-cache, mentioned
in commit 9b1cc9f251af ("dm cache: share cache-metadata object across
inactive and active DM tables"), it exposes the memory leak in
dm_cache_metadata_abort when the function is called multiple times.
Specifically, dm-cache fails to sync the new cache object's mode during
preresume, creating the reproducer condition.
This issue could also occur through concurrent metadata_operation_failed
calls due to races in cache mode updates, but the table preload scenario
below provides a reliable reproducer.
- Create a cache device with some faulty trailing metadata blocks
dmsetup create cmeta <
unreferenced object 0xffff8880080c2010 (size 16):
comm "dmsetup", pid 132, jiffies 4294982580
hex dump (first 16 bytes):
00 38 b9 07 80 88 ff ff 6a 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b a5 ...
backtrace (crc 3118f31c):
kmemleak_alloc+0x28/0x40
__kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x3d9/0x510
dm_block_manager_create+0x51/0x140
dm_cache_metadata_abort+0x85/0x320
metadata_operation_failed+0x103/0x1e0
cache_preresume+0xacd/0xe70
dm_table_resume_targets+0xd3/0x320
__dm_resume+0x1b/0xf0
dm_resume+0x127/0x170
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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 (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.
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