CVE-2026-98924

UNRATEDCVSS · not yet scored

Also known asEUVD-2026-108888 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-fcgw-j977-c8rv (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

—
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

A fix is available — apply it.

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

fs: avoid repeated scans in evict_inodes()

We observed hung tasks when users attempted to unmount a filesystem after its disk had been removed while still in use. During device removal, fs_bdev_mark_dead() calls evict_inodes() while holding s_umount.

Each time evict_inodes() drops s_inode_list_lock to reschedule, it restarts the walk from the head of s_inodes. With many referenced inodes at the head of the list, these restarts repeatedly scan the same inodes without reclaiming them. This can keep s_umount held for a long time, blocking concurrent umount attempts and triggering hung-task reports.

Keep the current inode, already marked I_FREEING, out of the disposal batch until s_inode_list_lock is reacquired. Resume the walk from this inode and dispose of it in a later batch or at the end of the walk.

The zero-refcount and state checks under i_lock allow this walker to claim the inode by setting I_FREEING and removing it from the LRU. Other reclaimers skip the inode, leaving this walker responsible for eviction. Only evict() removes it from s_inodes, so keeping it out of the disposal batch ensures that it remains on the list while the lock is dropped. After reacquiring the lock, reading its current next pointer accounts for concurrent removal of following inodes.

The existing inode lifetime rules prohibit acquiring a reference to an inode marked I_FREEING or I_WILL_FREE. __iget() requires its caller to hold i_lock and establish that taking a reference is valid. Inode lookup and igrab() check these flags under i_lock when acquiring a reference from zero. ihold() requires an existing reference, which would keep i_count nonzero and prevent this walker from claiming the inode. These rules already allow iput_final() and the inode shrinker to release i_lock after setting I_FREEING and before eviction completes.

A temporary __iget() reference would also keep the inode on the list, but its release must preserve last-reference handling. Another user can acquire a reference, update lazy timestamps and drop its reference while the pin is held. If the pin becomes the last reference, dropping it with atomic_dec_and_test() and evicting directly bypasses iput()'s lazytime handling and can lose those timestamp updates.

Releasing the pin with iput() preserves that handling, but does not guarantee eviction. fs_bdev_mark_dead() runs with SB_ACTIVE set, so iput() may retain the inode in cache, whereas evict_inodes() must evict eligible zero-reference inodes. The inode may also have been freed when iput() returns, so the walker cannot then use it to force eviction. Using I_FREEING preserves the existing eviction behavior without introducing an additional last-reference transition.

The xfstests auto group passed on ext4 and XFS with known unrelated failures excluded. No new issues were observed, and the previously reproducible hung task no longer occurs with this patch.

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
8th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

EG Severity
Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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
No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the BOD 26-04 block below.

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.

The score's inputs: 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

Published

October 23, 2026

Last Modified

October 23, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-98924(2)

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

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
linuxKernel @ 6.18.55 (fixes >=4.3.0)—osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 16× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. 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. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-03 16:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  2. 2026-11-02 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  3. 2026-11-01 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  4. 2026-10-31 18:25 UTCOSV refresh
  5. 2026-10-31 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  6. 2026-10-30 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  7. 2026-10-29 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  8. 2026-10-28 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  9. 2026-10-27 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  10. 2026-10-26 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  12. 2026-10-25 13:46 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-24 16:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 11th percentile
  14. 2026-10-23 13:25 UTCNVD update
  15. 2026-10-23 12:25 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-23 12:24 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-98924?
CVE-2026-98924 is a vulnerability whose severity is not yet rated; its CVE record was published on October 23, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs: avoid repeated scans in evict_inodes() We observed hung tasks when users attempted to unmount a filesystem after its disk had been removed while still in use. During device removal, fs_bdev_mark_dead() calls evict_inodes()…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-98924 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-98924 was published on October 23, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 23, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-98924 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-98924 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (8th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-98924?
A fix for CVE-2026-98924 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-98924 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-98924

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-98924?

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