CVE-2026-53399
Is CVE-2026-53399 real, 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:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: release layout stid on setlease failure nfs4_alloc_stid() publishes the new stid into cl->cl_stateids via idr_alloc_cyclic() under cl_lock before returning to nfsd4_alloc_layout_stateid(). When nfsd4_layout_setlease() then fails, the error path frees the layout stateid directly with kmem_cache_free() without ever calling idr_remove(), leaving the IDR slot pointing at freed slab memory. Any subsequent IDR walker (states_show, client teardown) dereferences the dangling pointer. The correct teardown for an IDR-published stid is nfs4_put_stid(), which removes the IDR slot under cl_lock, dispatches sc_free (nfsd4_free_layout_stateid) to release ls->ls_file via nfsd4_close_layout(), and drops the nfs4_file reference in its tail. A second issue blocks that switch: nfsd4_free_layout_stateid() unconditionally inspects ls->ls_fence_work via delayed_work_pending() under ls_lock, but INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&ls->ls_fence_work, ...) currently runs only after the setlease call. On the setlease-failure path the destructor would touch an uninitialized delayed_work. nfsd4_alloc_layout_stateid() nfs4_alloc_stid() /* idr_alloc_cyclic under cl_lock */ nfsd4_layout_setlease() /* fails */ nfs4_put_stid() nfsd4_free_layout_stateid() delayed_work_pending(&ls->ls_fence_work) /* needs INIT */ nfsd4_close_layout() /* nfsd_file_put(ls->ls_file) */ put_nfs4_file() Fix by hoisting the ls_fenced / ls_fence_delay / INIT_DELAYED_WORK initialization above the nfsd4_layout_setlease() call, and replace the manual nfsd_file_put + put_nfs4_file + kmem_cache_free cleanup with a single nfs4_put_stid(stp).
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53399)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53399"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-53399/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-53399"></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?
awaiting field verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
No 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.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 9.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.