In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ocfs2: fix possible deadlock between unlink and dio_end_io_write
ocfs2_unlink takes orphan dir inode_lock first and then ip_alloc_sem,
while in ocfs2_dio_end_io_write, it acquires these locks in reverse order.
This creates an ABBA lock ordering violation on lock classes
ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE] and
ocfs2_file_ip_alloc_sem_key.
Lock Chain #0 (orphan dir inode_lock -> ip_alloc_sem):
ocfs2_unlink
ocfs2_prepare_orphan_dir
ocfs2_lookup_lock_orphan_dir
inode_lock(orphan_dir_inode) <- lock A
__ocfs2_prepare_orphan_dir
ocfs2_prepare_dir_for_insert
ocfs2_extend_dir
ocfs2_expand_inline_dir
down_write(&oi->ip_alloc_sem) <- Lock B
Lock Chain #1 (ip_alloc_sem -> orphan dir inode_lock):
ocfs2_dio_end_io_write
down_write(&oi->ip_alloc_sem) <- Lock B
ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan()
inode_lock(orphan_dir_inode) <- Lock A
Deadlock Scenario:
CPU0 (unlink) CPU1 (dio_end_io_write)
------ ------
inode_lock(orphan_dir_inode)
down_write(ip_alloc_sem)
down_write(ip_alloc_sem)
inode_lock(orphan_dir_inode)
Since ip_alloc_sem is to protect allocation changes, which is unrelated
with operations in ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan. So move
ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan out of ip_alloc_sem to fix the deadlock.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-11). 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