CVE-2026-64281
Is CVE-2026-64281 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:N/I:N/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: svcrdma: wake sq waiters when the transport closes Threads parked in svc_rdma_sq_wait() on sc_sq_ticket_wait or sc_send_wait can hang indefinitely in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state across transport teardown, pinning svc_xprt references and blocking svc_rdma_free(). The close path sets XPT_CLOSE before invoking xpo_detach and both wait_event predicates include an XPT_CLOSE term, but the predicates are re-evaluated only on wakeup. sc_sq_ticket_wait has no completion-driven wake path; it is advanced solely by the chained ticket handoff inside svc_rdma_sq_wait() itself. Without an explicit wake at close, parked threads never observe XPT_CLOSE, hold their svc_xprt_get reference forever, and svc_rdma_free() blocks on xpt_ref dropping to zero. Two close entry points reach this transport. Local teardown runs svc_rdma_detach() from svc_handle_xprt() -> svc_delete_xprt() -> xpo_detach() on a worker thread. A remote disconnect arrives at svc_rdma_cma_handler(), which calls svc_xprt_deferred_close(): that sets XPT_CLOSE and enqueues the transport but does not access either RDMA waitqueue, so a worker already parked in svc_rdma_sq_wait() never re-evaluates its predicate. With every worker parked on this transport, no thread is available to run the local teardown either, and the wake site there is unreachable. Introduce svc_rdma_xprt_deferred_close(), a thin svcrdma wrapper that calls svc_xprt_deferred_close() and then wakes both sc_sq_ticket_wait and sc_send_wait. Convert the svcrdma producers that called svc_xprt_deferred_close() directly: svc_rdma_cma_handler(), qp_event_handler(), svc_rdma_post_send_err(), svc_rdma_wc_send(), the sendto drop path, the rw completion error paths, and the recvfrom flush and read-list error paths. Wake both waitqueues from svc_rdma_detach() as well. The synchronous svc_xprt_close() path (backchannel ENOTCONN, device removal via svc_rdma_xprt_done) reaches detach without flowing through svc_xprt_deferred_close() and therefore does not invoke the new helper. [ cel: add svc_rdma_xprt_deferred_close() to complete the fix ]
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64281)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64281"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64281/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64281"></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 7.5) 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.