CVE-2026-89767
What it is
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ovl: fix double end_creating() on the casefold-mismatch path ovl_create_real() releases the new dentry twice when the casefold consistency check fails. The S_IFDIR branch calls end_creating() and sets err, then falls through to the common out: label which calls end_creating() on the same dentry again: case S_IFDIR: newdentry = ovl_do_mkdir(ofs, dir, newdentry, attr->mode); err = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(newdentry); if (!err && ofs->casefold != ovl_dentry_casefolded(newdentry)) { pr_warn_ratelimited(...); end_creating(newdentry); /* first */ err = -EINVAL; } break; ... if (err) goto out; ... out: if (err) { end_creating(newdentry); /* second, same dentry */ return ERR_PTR(err); } end_creating() is end_dirop(), which does inode_unlock() on the parent and dput() on the dentry, so the parent directory's i_rwsem is unlocked twice and the dentry is put twice. The second unlock releases a lock that is not held, which is what wedges every later creation under that parent, and the second dput() drops a reference that was never taken. The branch was added by commit dfc7da402ccc ("ovl: Check for casefold consistency when creating new dentries") as a bare dput(), which already released the reference twice; commit fe497f0759e0 ("VFS: change vfs_mkdir() to unlock on failure.") converted both sites to end_creating(), adding the double unlock. This is reachable by an unprivileged user. The casefold consistency of the layers is validated at mount time in ovl_parse_layer(), and again on every lookup in ovl_lookup_single(), but ofs->workdir is the internal "work" subdirectory created inside the user-supplied workdir, and that subdirectory is not re-checked. Marking it casefolded after the mount therefore makes every ovl_create_temp() inherit the wrong state - and that path reaches ovl_create_real() through ovl_start_creating_temp(), which uses start_creating() with a generated name and so never runs the lookup-time check. unshare -Urm mount -t tmpfs -o casefold=utf8-12.1.0 tmpfs mnt mkdir -p mnt/lower/d mnt/upper mnt/work mnt/merged mount -t overlay ovl -o lowerdir=mnt/lower,\ upperdir=mnt/upper,workdir=mnt/work mnt/merged chattr +F mnt/work/work mkdir mnt/merged/d/sub # directory copy-up overlayfs: wrong inherited casefold (work/#5) and the next copy-up blocks forever on the parent's i_rwsem: mkdir D start_creating+0x65/0xb0 ovl_start_creating_temp+0xb0/0xe0 [overlay] ovl_create_temp+0xa3/0x1d0 [overlay] ovl_copy_up_one+0x1f1c/0x21c0 [overlay] ovl_copy_up_flags+0xf5/0x140 [overlay] ovl_create_object+0xb7/0x220 [overlay] ovl_mkdir+0x23/0x40 [overlay] Drop the end_creating() from the branch and let out: own the cleanup, which is what every other error path in this function already does.
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
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- 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
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Record status
- Received
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
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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-2026-89767.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-89767. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
