In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: fix potential deadlock with newly created symlinks
Syzbot reported that page_symlink(), called by nilfs_symlink(), triggers
memory reclamation involving the filesystem layer, which can result in
circular lock dependencies among the reader/writer semaphore
nilfs->ns_segctor_sem, s_writers percpu_rwsem (intwrite) and the
fs_reclaim pseudo lock.
This is because after commit 21fc61c73c39 ("don't put symlink bodies in
pagecache into highmem"), the gfp flags of the page cache for symbolic
links are overwritten to GFP_KERNEL via inode_nohighmem().
This is not a problem for symlinks read from the backing device, because
the __GFP_FS flag is dropped after inode_nohighmem() is called. However,
when a new symlink is created with nilfs_symlink(), the gfp flags remain
overwritten to GFP_KERNEL. Then, memory allocation called from
page_symlink() etc. triggers memory reclamation including the FS layer,
which may call nilfs_evict_inode() or nilfs_dirty_inode(). And these can
cause a deadlock if they are called while nilfs->ns_segctor_sem is held:
Fix this issue by dropping the __GFP_FS flag from the page cache GFP flags
of newly created symlinks in the same way that nilfs_new_inode() and
__nilfs_read_inode() do, as a workaround until we adopt nofs allocation
scope consistently or improve the locking constraints.
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