In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: cyclic allocation of msg_id to avoid reuse
Reusing the msg_id after a maliciously completed reopen request may cause
a read request to remain unprocessed and result in a hung, as shown below:
t1 | t2 | t3
-------------------------------------------------
cachefiles_ondemand_select_req
cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_close(A)
cachefiles_ondemand_set_object_reopening(A)
queue_work(fscache_object_wq, &info->work)
ondemand_object_worker
cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(A)
cachefiles_ondemand_send_req(OPEN)
// get msg_id 6
wait_for_completion(&req_A->done)
cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read
// read msg_id 6 req_A
cachefiles_ondemand_get_fd
copy_to_user
// Malicious completion msg_id 6
copen 6,-1
cachefiles_ondemand_copen
complete(&req_A->done)
// will not set the object to close
// because ondemand_id && fd is valid.
// ondemand_object_worker() is done
// but the object is still reopening.
// new open req_B
cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(B)
cachefiles_ondemand_send_req(OPEN)
// reuse msg_id 6
process_open_req
copen 6,A.size
// The expected failed copen was executed successfully
Expect copen to fail, and when it does, it closes fd, which sets the
object to close, and then close triggers reopen again. However, due to
msg_id reuse resulting in a successful copen, the anonymous fd is not
closed until the daemon exits. Therefore read requests waiting for reopen
to complete may trigger hung task.
To avoid this issue, allocate the msg_id cyclically to avoid reusing the
msg_id for a very short duration of time.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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