CVE-2026-53399
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: release layout stid on setlease failure nfs4_alloc_stid() publishes the new stid into cl->cl_stateids via idr_alloc_cyclic() under cl_lock before returning to nfsd4_alloc_layout_stateid(). When nfsd4_layout_setlease() then fails, the error path frees the layout stateid directly with kmem_cache_free() without ever calling idr_remove(), leaving the IDR slot pointing at freed slab memory. Any subsequent IDR walker (states_show, client teardown) dereferences the dangling pointer. The correct teardown for an IDR-published stid is nfs4_put_stid(), which removes the IDR slot under cl_lock, dispatches sc_free (nfsd4_free_layout_stateid) to release ls->ls_file via nfsd4_close_layout(), and drops the nfs4_file reference in its tail. A second issue blocks that switch: nfsd4_free_layout_stateid() unconditionally inspects ls->ls_fence_work via delayed_work_pending() under ls_lock, but INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&ls->ls_fence_work, ...) currently runs only after the setlease call. On the setlease-failure path the destructor would touch an uninitialized delayed_work. nfsd4_alloc_layout_stateid() nfs4_alloc_stid() /* idr_alloc_cyclic under cl_lock */ nfsd4_layout_setlease() /* fails */ nfs4_put_stid() nfsd4_free_layout_stateid() delayed_work_pending(&ls->ls_fence_work) /* needs INIT */ nfsd4_close_layout() /* nfsd_file_put(ls->ls_file) */ put_nfs4_file() Fix by hoisting the ls_fenced / ls_fence_delay / INIT_DELAYED_WORK initialization above the nfsd4_layout_setlease() call, and replace the manual nfsd_file_put + put_nfs4_file + kmem_cache_free cleanup with a single nfs4_put_stid(stp).
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · low confidenceAffected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 4.0, < 5.10.261>= 5.11, < 5.15.212>= 5.16, < 6.1.178>= 6.2, < 6.6.145>= 6.7, < 6.12.96>= 6.13, < 6.18.39>= 6.19, < 7.1.3CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data5.10.2615.15.2126.1.178
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53399 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-53399 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data