In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: fix deadlock in nilfs_count_free_blocks()
A semaphore deadlock can occur if nilfs_get_block() detects metadata
corruption while locating data blocks and a superblock writeback occurs at
the same time:
task 1 task 2
------ ------
* A file operation *
nilfs_truncate()
nilfs_get_block()
down_read(rwsem A) <--
nilfs_bmap_lookup_contig()
... generic_shutdown_super()
nilfs_put_super()
* Prepare to write superblock *
down_write(rwsem B) <--
nilfs_cleanup_super()
* Detect b-tree corruption * nilfs_set_log_cursor()
nilfs_bmap_convert_error() nilfs_count_free_blocks()
__nilfs_error() down_read(rwsem A) <--
nilfs_set_error()
down_write(rwsem B) <--
* DEADLOCK *
Here, nilfs_get_block() readlocks rwsem A (= NILFS_MDT(dat_inode)->mi_sem)
and then calls nilfs_bmap_lookup_contig(), but if it fails due to metadata
corruption, __nilfs_error() is called from nilfs_bmap_convert_error()
inside the lock section.
Since __nilfs_error() calls nilfs_set_error() unless the filesystem is
read-only and nilfs_set_error() attempts to writelock rwsem B (=
nilfs->ns_sem) to write back superblock exclusively, hierarchical lock
acquisition occurs in the order rwsem A -> rwsem B.
Now, if another task starts updating the superblock, it may writelock
rwsem B during the lock sequence above, and can deadlock trying to
readlock rwsem A in nilfs_count_free_blocks().
However, there is actually no need to take rwsem A in
nilfs_count_free_blocks() because it, within the lock section, only reads
a single integer data on a shared struct with
nilfs_sufile_get_ncleansegs(). This has been the case after commit
aa474a220180 ("nilfs2: add local variable to cache the number of clean
segments"), that is, even before this bug was introduced.
So, this resolves the deadlock problem by just not taking the semaphore in
nilfs_count_free_blocks().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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