CVE-2026-90125

UNRATEDCVSS · not yet scoredTrending — 3 sources updated this week
—
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • No CVSS published and no exploitation signals yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS v2: —Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

smb: client: fix request buffer leak in smb2_new_read_req()

smb2_new_read_req() allocates the request buffer with smb2_plain_req_init() but only publishes it to the caller with *buf = req at the very end of the function. Two error returns sit in between:

rc = smb2_plain_req_init(SMB2_READ, io_parms->tcon, server, (void **) &req, total_len); if (rc) return rc;

if (server == NULL) return -ECONNABORTED; [...] rdata->mr = smbd_register_mr(server->smbd_conn, &rdata->subreq.io_iter, true, need_invalidate); if (!rdata->mr) return -EAGAIN;

On either of them the buffer is neither released nor handed back, so it is leaked. The caller cannot clean up after it: smb2_async_readv() does 'goto out' on a non-zero return, which skips the cifs_small_buf_release(buf) at async_readv_out, and buf has not been assigned at that point in any case.

The write path has never had this problem. smb2_async_writev() registers the memory region inline and jumps to its release label instead of returning:

wdata->mr = smbd_register_mr(...); if (!wdata->mr) { rc = -EAGAIN; goto async_writev_out; }

Commit b7972092199f ("cifs: smbd: Retry on memory registration failure") changed both sides from -ENOBUFS to -EAGAIN in a single patch, which puts the two shapes next to each other.

Only the -EAGAIN return is reachable in practice, because smb2_plain_req_init() calls smb2_reconnect() first and that already fails with -EIO when server is NULL, before anything is allocated. Both returns are given the same treatment here rather than leaving one of them correct only by accident.

Because -EAGAIN is a replayable error, the failure also reaches the retry block at the end of smb2_async_readv(), which marks the subrequest NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, so a failing registration can be retried rather than ending the I/O, and every attempt that reaches it leaks another buffer. smb2_should_replay() short-circuits on tcon->retry, so on a hard mount the attempt count is not bounded by the retrans setting.

Only the asynchronous read path is affected. The synchronous SMB2_read() caller passes rdata == NULL and the memory registration block is guarded on rdata.

The memory registration failure path was pointed out by the Sashiko AI reviewer while it was reviewing an unrelated patch to smb2_async_readv().

CVSS v3
—
EchelonGraph score
Not yet assessedNo source has published severity data for this CVE yet — no CVSS score from NVD or a CNA, no GitHub advisory, and it is not in CISA KEV. This is not a rating of zero; we cannot assess it yet.
EG Score
—
EG Risk
—
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
10th
KEV
Not listed

Published

September 17, 2026

Last Modified

September 17, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-90125(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(4 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (360 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
linux-6.126.12.100-1~deb12u1, 6.12.101-1~deb12u1, 6.12.107-1~deb12u1
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1~deb12u1: fixed in 6.12.111-1~deb12u1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.12.96-1 (35 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.111-1: fixed in 6.12.111-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (179 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.6-1: fixed in 7.2.6-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 23× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-10-03 17:20 UTCGHSA enrichment
  3. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  4. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  5. 2026-09-30 12:39 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-09-30 12:39 UTCGHSA enrichment
  7. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  8. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  9. 2026-09-27 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-09-27 07:54 UTCGHSA enrichment
  11. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  12. 2026-09-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  13. 2026-09-24 03:14 UTCGHSA enrichment
  14. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-09-22 16:01 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-09-20 22:33 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-09-20 22:32 UTCGHSA enrichment
  19. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescore
  20. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescore
  21. 2026-09-17 17:23 UTCNVD update
  22. 2026-09-17 16:48 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-09-17 16:19 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-90125?
CVE-2026-90125 is a publicly disclosed vulnerability published on September 17, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb: client: fix request buffer leak in smb2newread_req() smb2newread_req() allocates the request buffer with smb2plainreq_init() but only publishes it to the caller with *buf = req at the very end of the function. Two error…
When was CVE-2026-90125 disclosed?
CVE-2026-90125 was first published on September 17, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-90125 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-90125 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (10th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-90125?
No fix for CVE-2026-90125 is confirmed yet. Until one is published, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation — for example, keep it off the internet or limit it to trusted networks — and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-90125 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-90125

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-90125?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.