CVE-2025-40105

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: Don't leak disconnected dentries on umount When user calls open_by_handle_at() on some inode that is not cached, we will create disconnected dentry for it. If such dentry is a directory, exportfs_decode_fh_raw() will then try to connect this dentry to the dentry tree through reconnect_path(). It may happen for various reasons (such as corrupted fs or race with rename) that the call to lookup_one_unlocked() in reconnect_one() will fail to find the dentry we are trying to reconnect and instead create a new dentry under the parent. Now this dentry will not be marked as disconnected although the parent still may well be disconnected (at least in case this inconsistency happened because the fs is corrupted and .. doesn't point to the real parent directory). This creates inconsistency in disconnected flags but AFAICS it was mostly harmless. At least until commit f1ee616214cb ("VFS: don't keep disconnected dentries on d_anon") which removed adding of most disconnected dentries to sb->s_anon list. Thus after this commit cleanup of disconnected dentries implicitely relies on the fact that dput() will immediately reclaim such dentries. However when some leaf dentry isn't marked as disconnected, as in the scenario described above, the reclaim doesn't happen and the dentries are "leaked". Memory reclaim can eventually reclaim them but otherwise they stay in memory and if umount comes first, we hit infamous "Busy inodes after unmount" bug. Make sure all dentries created under a disconnected parent are marked as disconnected as well.

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.

Timeline

1. 2025-04-16 07:20 UTC ReservedThe CVE id was reserved by its CNA
2. 2025-10-30 10:15 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
3. 2026-10-19 21:10 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
• Fix: none linked yet, which raises it.

Details

Published

2025-10-30 10:15 UTC

Last modified

2026-10-19 21:10 UTC

Exploit probability

0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days

Record status

Deferred

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8

Attack vector

Local

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2025-40105.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2025-40105. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge