In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
9p: skip nlink update in cacheless mode to fix WARN_ON
v9fs_dec_count() unconditionally calls drop_nlink() on regular files,
even when the inode's nlink is already zero. In cacheless mode the
client refetches inode metadata from the server (the source of truth)
on every operation, so by the time v9fs_remove() returns, the locally
cached nlink may already reflect the post-unlink value:
- Client initiates unlink, server processes it and sets nlink to 0
- Client refetches inode metadata (nlink=0) before unlink returns
- Client's v9fs_remove() completes successfully
- Client calls v9fs_dec_count() which calls drop_nlink() on nlink=0
This race is easily triggered under heavy unlink workloads, such as
stress-ng's unlink stressor, producing the following warning:
WARNING: fs/inode.c:417 at drop_nlink+0x4c/0xc8
Call trace:
drop_nlink+0x4c/0xc8
v9fs_remove+0x1e0/0x250 [9p]
v9fs_vfs_unlink+0x20/0x38 [9p]
vfs_unlink+0x13c/0x258
...
In cacheless mode the server is authoritative and the inode is on its
way out, so locally adjusting nlink buys nothing. Skip v9fs_dec_count()
entirely when neither CACHE_META nor CACHE_LOOSE is set, which both
avoids the warning and removes a class of nlink races (two concurrent
unlinkers observing nlink > 0 and both calling drop_nlink()) that an
nlink == 0 guard alone would only narrow rather than close.
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 2026-10-17). 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