In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
smb: client: fix busy dentry warning on unmount after DIO
Commit c68337442f03 ("cifs: Fix busy dentry used after unmounting") fixed
the issue in cifs where deferred close of a file led to a dentry reference
count not being released in umount, by flushing deferredclose_wq in
cifs_kill_sb() to solve it.
However, the cifs DIO path suffers from the same busy-dentry problem caused
by a delayed dentry reference-count release:
[dio] [cifsd] [close + umount]
netfs_unbuffered_write_iter_locked
...
cifs_demultiplex_thread
netfs_unbuffered_write
cifs_issue_write
netfs_wait_for_in_progress_stream [1]
...
netfs_write_subrequest_terminated
netfs_subreq_clear_in_progress
netfs_wake_collector // wake [1]
netfs_put_subrequest
netfs_put_request
queue_work(system_dfl_wq, xxx) [2]
// dio write return cifs_close
_cifsFileInfo_put
// cfile->count 2->1
--cfile->count [3]
// umount
cifs_kill_sb
kill_anon_super
// warning triggered!
shrink_dcache_for_umount [4]
[system_dfl_wq] [5]
netfs_free_request
...
_cifsFileInfo_put
// cfile->count 1->0
--cfile->count
queue_work(fileinfo_put_wq, xxx)
[fileinfo_put_wq] [6]
cifsFileInfo_put_work
cifsFileInfo_put_final
dput
If the umount path is triggered before [5], it results warning:
BUG: Dentry 00000000eab1f070{i=9a917b66ae404fec,n=test} still in use (1)
[unmount of cifs cifs]
The existing per-inode ictx->io_count wait in cifs_evict_inode() does not
help: it lives in the inode eviction path, which runs after
shrink_dcache_for_umount() has already warned about the busy dentries.
Fix it by adding a per-superblock outstanding-rreq counter that is
incremented in cifs_init_request() and decremented in cifs_free_request().
In cifs_kill_sb(), before kill_anon_super(), wait for this counter to reach
0 - which guarantees that all cleanup_work for this sb have run and thus
all relevant cfile puts are queued on fileinfo_put_wq or serverclose_wq.
Then drain the workqueue so the dentry refs are dropped.
This is a targeted wait, not a flush of the system-wide system_dfl_wq.
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 (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