In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: clean up potential nfsd_file refcount leaks in COPY codepath
There are two different flavors of the nfsd4_copy struct. One is
embedded in the compound and is used directly in synchronous copies. The
other is dynamically allocated, refcounted and tracked in the client
struture. For the embedded one, the cleanup just involves releasing any
nfsd_files held on its behalf. For the async one, the cleanup is a bit
more involved, and we need to dequeue it from lists, unhash it, etc.
There is at least one potential refcount leak in this code now. If the
kthread_create call fails, then both the src and dst nfsd_files in the
original nfsd4_copy object are leaked.
The cleanup in this codepath is also sort of weird. In the async copy
case, we'll have up to four nfsd_file references (src and dst for both
flavors of copy structure). They are both put at the end of
nfsd4_do_async_copy, even though the ones held on behalf of the embedded
one outlive that structure.
Change it so that we always clean up the nfsd_file refs held by the
embedded copy structure before nfsd4_copy returns. Rework
cleanup_async_copy to handle both inter and intra copies. Eliminate
nfsd4_cleanup_intra_ssc since it now becomes a no-op.
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
- 0.3% 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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