CVE-2026-53265
is CVE-2026-53265real, 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:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dm cache policy smq: check allocation under invalidate lock commit 2d1f7b65f5de ("dm cache policy smq: fix missing locks in invalidating cache blocks") added mq->lock around the destructive part of smq_invalidate_mapping(), but left the e->allocated check outside the critical section. That leaves a check-then-act race. Two concurrent invalidators can both observe e->allocated as true before either of them takes mq->lock. The first invalidator that acquires the lock removes the entry from the queues and hash table and then calls free_entry(), which clears e->allocated and puts the entry back on the free list. The second invalidator can then acquire mq->lock and continue with the stale result of the unlocked check. This can corrupt the SMQ queues or hash table by deleting an entry that is no longer on those structures. It can also hit the allocation check in free_entry() when the same entry is freed again. Move the allocation check under mq->lock so the predicate and the destructive operations are serialized by the same lock.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53265)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53265"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53265/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53265"></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.