In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
afs: Fix UAF when sending a message
In afs_make_call(), there's a race with async call reception and
destruction. If a call is dispatched that doesn't have call->write_iter
set (used to specify the data content for FS.StoreData), then the first
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() will not set MSG_MORE in the msghdr.
Once rxrpc_send_data() queues the last request packet, the response could
come in at any time and cause the call to be completed and put. However,
afs_make_call() will look at the call again to see it ->write_iter should
be handled - something it's only allowed to do if it has its own ref on the
call. Whilst this is the case for synchronous calls, it isn't true for
async calls such as FS.FetchData.
There's also a potential UAF in afs_make_call() in the event that an
asynchronous call is being sent, but the call fails in some way (e.g. it
gets aborted from the server). The problem there is that afs_make_call()
tries to abort a call if the rxrpc send fails, but the asynchronous
notification from rxrpc may have caused the afs_call to be torn down.
generic/650 plays games with randomly taking CPUs offline, and can
interject a significant delay such that the call is deallocated before
afs_make_call() gets to check call->write_iter - and a UAF ensues (caught
by KASAN).
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in afs_make_call+0x1c90/0x2210 [kafs]
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888035e050e8 by task fsstress/1409
Fix this by making afs_make_op_call() give the op->call its own ref rather
than transferring the caller's ref to it and then dropping the ref when
afs_make_call() returns.
This also means that the afs_make_call() func never loses its ref on the
call 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 (7.8): 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