In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: wait for ondemand_object_worker to finish when dropping object
When queuing ondemand_object_worker() to re-open the object,
cachefiles_object is not pinned. The cachefiles_object may be freed when
the pending read request is completed intentionally and the related
erofs is umounted. If ondemand_object_worker() runs after the object is
freed, it will incur use-after-free problem as shown below.
process A processs B process C process D
cachefiles_ondemand_send_req()
// send a read req X
// wait for its completion
// close ondemand fd
cachefiles_ondemand_fd_release()
// set object as CLOSE
cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read()
// set object as REOPENING
queue_work(fscache_wq, &info->ondemand_work)
// close /dev/cachefiles
cachefiles_daemon_release
cachefiles_flush_reqs
complete(&req->done)
// read req X is completed
// umount the erofs fs
cachefiles_put_object()
// object will be freed
cachefiles_ondemand_deinit_obj_info()
kmem_cache_free(object)
// both info and object are freed
ondemand_object_worker()
When dropping an object, it is no longer necessary to reopen the object,
so use cancel_work_sync() to cancel or wait for ondemand_object_worker()
to finish.
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