Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2026-43245: Linux kernel · ntfs: ->d_compare() must not block

Affects Linux kernelSource GCVE Database

0
Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score
7.5High
How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none
CVSS scores by source
CNA (Linux)CVSS 3.17.5
EPSS
0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 6 May 2026

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponized: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq Mirage: no evidence on record.

    No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 11 Nov 2026.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: ->d_compare() must not block ... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash() almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now. Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of the users actually want PATH_MAX.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…