CVE-2026-53244
is CVE-2026-53244real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: VFS: fix possible failure to unlock in nfsd4_create_file() atomic_create() in fs/namei.c drops the reference to the dentry when it returns an error. This behaviour was imported into dentry_create() so that it will drop the reference if an error is returned from atomic_create(), though not if vfs_create() returns an error (in the case where ->atomic_create is not supported). The caller - nfsd4_create_file() - is made aware of this by checking path->dentry, which will either be a counted reference to a dentry, or an error pointer. However the change to use start_creating()/end_creating() (which landed shortly before the dentry_create() change landed, though was likely developed around the same time) means that nfsd4_create_file() *needs* a valid dentry so that it can unlock the parent. The net result is that if NFSD exports a filesystem which uses ->atomic_create, and if a call to ->atomic_create returns an error, then nfsd4_create_file() will pass an error pointer to end_creating() and the parent will not be unlocked. Fix this by changing dentry_create() to make sure path->dentry is always a valid dentry, never an error-pointer. The actual error is already returned a different way. Note that if ->atomic_create() returns a different dentry (which may not be possible in practice) we are guaranteed (because it is only ever provided by d_spliace_alias()) that it will have the same d_parent and so it will have the same effect when passed to end_creating().
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53244)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53244"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53244/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53244"></a>Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.
Community ground truth
Be the first practitioner to weigh in
So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.
🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.
In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?
0 verdictsNo account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.
Field notes & remediation
Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.
No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.