CVE-2026-64017
Is CVE-2026-64017 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: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: blk-mq: pop cached request if it is usable When submitting a bio to blk-mq, if the task should sleep after peeking a cached request, but before it pops it, the plug flushes and calls blk_mq_free_plug_rqs, freeing the cached_rqs. This creates a use-after-free bug. Fix this by popping the cached request before any possible blocking calls if it is suitable for use. Popping this request first holds a queue reference, so avoid any serialization races with queue freezes and can safely proceed with dispatching that request to the driver. This potentially increases a timing window from when a driver wants to freeze its queue to when requests stop being dispatched. That scenario is off the fast path though, and drivers need to appropriately handle requests during a freeze request anyway. The downside is the popped element needs to be individually freed when we performed a bio plug merge. The cached request would have had to be freed later anyway, but this patch does it inline with building the plug list instead of after flushing it.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64017)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64017"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64017/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64017"></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 7.8) 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 needs local access, so it reads more as a privilege-escalation or post-access risk than a remote one. 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.