CVE-2026-72472
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: nfs: use nfsi->rwsem to protect traversal of the file lock list Lingfeng identified a bug and suggested two solutions, but both appear to have issues. Generally, we cannot release flc_lock while iterating over the file lock list to avoid use-after-free (UAF) problems with file locks. However, functions like nfs_delegation_claim_locks and nfs4_reclaim_locks cannot adhere to this rule because recover_lock or nfs4_lock_delegation_recall may take a long time. To resolve this, NFS switches to using nfsi->rwsem for the same protection, and nfs_reclaim_locks follows this approach. Although nfs_delegation_claim_locks uses so_delegreturn_mutex instead, this is inadequate since a single inode can have multiple nfs4_state instances. Therefore, the fix is to also use nfsi->rwsem in this case. Furthermore, after commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), the functions nfs4_locku_done and nfs4_lock_done also break this rule because they call locks_lock_inode_wait without holding nfsi->rwsem. Simply adding this protection could cause many deadlocks, so instead, the call to locks_lock_inode_wait is moved into _nfs4_proc_setlk. Regarding the bug fixed by commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), it has been resolved after commit 0460253913e5 ("NFSv4: nfs4_do_open() is incorrectly triggering state recovery") because all slots are drained before calling nfs4_do_reclaim, which prevents concurrent stateid changes along this path. Also, nfs_delegation_claim_locks does not cause this concurrency either since when _nfs4_proc_setlk is called with NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, no RPC is sent, so nfs4_lock_done is not called. Therefore, nfs4_lock_delegation_recall from nfs_delegation_claim_locks is the first time the stateid is set.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
CVSS 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 dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $5,750. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-72472 — 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-2026-72472 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