CVE-2026-64108
Is CVE-2026-64108 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: cifs: Fix busy dentry used after unmounting Since commit 340cea84f691c ("cifs: open files should not hold ref on superblock"), cifs file only holds the dentry ref_cnt, the cifs file close work(cfile->deferred) could be executed after unmounting, which will trigger a warning in generic_shutdown_super: BUG: Dentry 00000000a14a6845{i=c,n=file} still in use (1) [unmount of cifs cifs] The detailed processs is: process A process B kworker fd = open(PATH) vfs_open file->__f_path = *path // dentry->d_lockref.count = 1 cifs_open cifs_new_fileinfo cfile->dentry = dget(dentry) // dentry->d_lockref.count = 2 close(fd) __fput cifs_close queue_delayed_work(deferredclose_wq, cfile->deferred) dput(dentry) // dentry->d_lockref.count = 1 smb2_deferred_work_close _cifsFileInfo_put list_del(&cifs_file->flist) umount cleanup_mnt deactivate_super cifs_kill_sb cifs_close_all_deferred_files_sb cifs_close_all_deferred_files // cannot find cfile, skip _cifsFileInfo_put kill_anon_super generic_shutdown_super shrink_dcache_for_umount umount_check WARN ! // dentry->d_lockref.count = 1 cifsFileInfo_put_final dput(cifs_file->dentry) // dentry->d_lockref.count = 0 Fix it by flushing 'deferredclose_wq' before calling kill_anon_super. Fetch a reproducer in https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221548.
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64108)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64108"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64108/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64108"></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.