VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-64067: Linux kernel · netfs: Fix missing barriers when accessing stream->subrequests locklessly

Source GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% 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:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jul 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by 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 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

ghsa-f3mp-m5hm-h688

What to do

AI-suggested

A fix has been implemented in the Linux kernel by adding memory barrier functions and using them appropriately in netfs code. Users should apply the updated kernel version containing this fix. Patch status is not explicitly confirmed in the provided data; check the vendor or Linux kernel advisories for the exact fixed versions and update accordingly.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfs: Fix missing barriers when accessing stream->subrequests locklessly The list of subrequests attached to stream->subrequests is accessed without locks by netfs_collect_read_results() and netfs_collect_write_results(), and then they access subreq->flags without taking a barrier after getting the subreq pointer from the list. Relatedly, the functions that build the list don't use any sort of write barrier when constructing the list to make sure that the NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS flag is perceived to be set first if no lock is taken. Fix this by: (1) Add a new list_add_tail_release() function that uses a release barrier to set the pointer to the new member of the list. (2) Add a new list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() function that uses an acquire barrier to read the pointer to the first member in a list (or return NULL). (3) Use list_add_tail_release() when adding a subreq to ->subrequests. (4) Use list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() when initially accessing the front of the list (when an item is removed, the pointer to the new front iterm is obtained under the same lock).

Impact

Without proper memory barriers, concurrent access to the subrequests list could result in reading stale or inconsistent data, potentially causing incorrect behavior in the netfs subsystem. However, no specific exploitation details or impact such as privilege escalation or denial of service are provided.

Summary

The Linux kernel netfs subsystem had a concurrency issue where the list of subrequests (stream->subrequests) was accessed locklessly without proper memory barriers. Functions netfs_collect_read_results() and netfs_collect_write_results() read subreq->flags without an acquire barrier after obtaining the subreq pointer, while the list construction functions lacked a release barrier to ensure the NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS flag was visible before the pointer was published. The fix involved adding list_add_tail_release() and list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() functions to enforce release and acquire memory barriers respectively, and using these functions when adding to and accessing the subrequests list to ensure correct synchronization.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…