In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache
ksmbd maintains delete-on-close and pending-delete state in
ksmbd_inode->m_flags. In vfs_cache.c this field is accessed under
inconsistent locking: some paths read and modify m_flags under
ci->m_lock while others do so without taking the lock at all.
Examples:
- ksmbd_query_inode_status() and __ksmbd_inode_close() use
ci->m_lock when checking or updating m_flags.
- ksmbd_inode_pending_delete(), ksmbd_set_inode_pending_delete(),
ksmbd_clear_inode_pending_delete() and ksmbd_fd_set_delete_on_close()
used to read and modify m_flags without ci->m_lock.
This creates a potential data race on m_flags when multiple threads
open, close and delete the same file concurrently. In the worst case
delete-on-close and pending-delete bits can be lost or observed in an
inconsistent state, leading to confusing delete semantics (files that
stay on disk after delete-on-close, or files that disappear while still
in use).
Fix it by:
- Making ksmbd_query_inode_status() look at m_flags under ci->m_lock
after dropping inode_hash_lock.
- Adding ci->m_lock protection to all helpers that read or modify
m_flags (ksmbd_inode_pending_delete(), ksmbd_set_inode_pending_delete(),
ksmbd_clear_inode_pending_delete(), ksmbd_fd_set_delete_on_close()).
- Keeping the existing ci->m_lock protection in __ksmbd_inode_close(),
and moving the actual unlink/xattr removal outside the lock.
This unifies the locking around m_flags and removes the data race while
preserving the existing delete-on-close behaviour.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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