In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
9p: set req refcount to zero to avoid uninitialized usage
When a new request is allocated, the refcount will be zero if it is
reused, but if the request is newly allocated from slab, it is not fully
initialized before being added to idr.
If the p9_read_work got a response before the refcount initiated. It will
use a uninitialized req, which will result in a bad request data struct.
Here is the logs from syzbot.
Corrupted memory at 0xffff88807eade00b [ 0xff 0x07 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0x00 0x00 . . . . . . . . ] (in kfence-#110):
p9_fcall_fini net/9p/client.c:248 [inline]
p9_req_put net/9p/client.c:396 [inline]
p9_req_put+0x208/0x250 net/9p/client.c:390
p9_client_walk+0x247/0x540 net/9p/client.c:1165
clone_fid fs/9p/fid.h:21 [inline]
v9fs_fid_xattr_set+0xe4/0x2b0 fs/9p/xattr.c:118
v9fs_xattr_set fs/9p/xattr.c:100 [inline]
v9fs_xattr_handler_set+0x6f/0x120 fs/9p/xattr.c:159
__vfs_setxattr+0x119/0x180 fs/xattr.c:182
__vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x129/0x5f0 fs/xattr.c:216
__vfs_setxattr_locked+0x1d3/0x260 fs/xattr.c:277
vfs_setxattr+0x143/0x340 fs/xattr.c:309
setxattr+0x146/0x160 fs/xattr.c:617
path_setxattr+0x197/0x1c0 fs/xattr.c:636
__do_sys_setxattr fs/xattr.c:652 [inline]
__se_sys_setxattr fs/xattr.c:648 [inline]
__ia32_sys_setxattr+0xc0/0x160 fs/xattr.c:648
do_syscall_32_irqs_on arch/x86/entry/common.c:112 [inline]
__do_fast_syscall_32+0x65/0xf0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:178
do_fast_syscall_32+0x33/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:203
entry_SYSENTER_compat_after_hwframe+0x70/0x82
Below is a similar scenario, the scenario in the syzbot log looks more
complicated than this one, but this patch can fix it.
T21124 p9_read_work
======================== second trans =================================
p9_client_walk
p9_client_rpc
p9_client_prepare_req
p9_tag_alloc
req = kmem_cache_alloc(p9_req_cache, GFP_NOFS);
tag = idr_alloc
<< preempted >>
req->tc.tag = tag;
/* req->[refcount/tag] == uninitialized */
m->rreq = p9_tag_lookup(m->client, m->rc.tag);
/* increments uninitalized refcount */
refcount_set(&req->refcount, 2);
/* cb drops one ref */
p9_client_cb(req)
/* reader thread drops its ref:
request is incorrectly freed */
p9_req_put(req)
/* use after free and ref underflow */
p9_req_put(req)
To fix it, we can initialize the refcount to zero before add to idr.
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
- 0.4% 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 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.
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