In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfs: use nfsi->rwsem to protect traversal of the file lock list
Lingfeng identified a bug and suggested two solutions, but both appear
to have issues.
Generally, we cannot release flc_lock while iterating over the file lock
list to avoid use-after-free (UAF) problems with file locks. However,
functions like nfs_delegation_claim_locks and nfs4_reclaim_locks cannot
adhere to this rule because recover_lock or nfs4_lock_delegation_recall
may take a long time. To resolve this, NFS switches to using nfsi->rwsem
for the same protection, and nfs_reclaim_locks follows this approach.
Although nfs_delegation_claim_locks uses so_delegreturn_mutex instead,
this is inadequate since a single inode can have multiple nfs4_state
instances. Therefore, the fix is to also use nfsi->rwsem in this case.
Furthermore, after commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range
lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), the functions
nfs4_locku_done and nfs4_lock_done also break this rule because they
call locks_lock_inode_wait without holding nfsi->rwsem. Simply adding
this protection could cause many deadlocks, so instead, the call to
locks_lock_inode_wait is moved into _nfs4_proc_setlk. Regarding the bug
fixed by commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range
lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), it has been resolved
after commit 0460253913e5 ("NFSv4: nfs4_do_open() is incorrectly triggering
state recovery") because all slots are drained before calling
nfs4_do_reclaim, which prevents concurrent stateid changes along this path.
Also, nfs_delegation_claim_locks does not cause this concurrency either
since when _nfs4_proc_setlk is called with NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, no RPC is
sent, so nfs4_lock_done is not called. Therefore,
nfs4_lock_delegation_recall from nfs_delegation_claim_locks is the first
time the stateid is set.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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