CVE-2026-64396
Is CVE-2026-64396 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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: fix UAF of struct file_lock in SMB2_LOCK deferred-lock cancellation When a blocking byte-range lock request is deferred in the FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED path, ksmbd registers the asynchronous work into the connection's async_requests list via setup_async_work(). The cancel callback smb2_remove_blocked_lock() holds a reference to the flock. If the lock waiter is subsequently woken up but the work state is no longer KSMBD_WORK_ACTIVE (e.g., due to a concurrent cancellation), the cleanup path calls locks_free_lock(flock) without dequeuing the work from the async_requests list. Concurrently, smb2_cancel() walks the list under conn->request_lock and invokes the cancel callback, which then dereferences the already freed 'flock'. This leads to a slab-use-after-free inside __wake_up_common. Fix this by restructuring the cleanup logic after the worker returns from ksmbd_vfs_posix_lock_wait(). Move list_del(&smb_lock->llist) and release_async_work(work) to the top of the cleanup block. This guarantees that the async work is completely dequeued and serialized under conn->request_lock before locks_free_lock(flock) is called, rendering the flock unreachable for any concurrent smb2_cancel().
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64396)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64396"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64396/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64396"></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 8.8) 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. 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.