CVE-2026-89647 — ceph: do not repeat ceph_trim_dentries() if no progress possible
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: do not repeat ceph_trim_dentries() if no progress possible ceph_cap_reclaim_work() re-queues itself for as long as ceph_trim_dentries() returns -EAGAIN, which happens whenever a lease walk exhausts its `nr_to_scan` budget. This creates a busy loop that consumes CPU without making any progress when there is nothing to reclaim: with no cap pressure (`count==0`) and every scanned lease still valid, each pass runs the full scan budget down to zero and returns `-EAGAIN`, only to be queued again immediately. The dir-lease walk made this worse. When `expire_dir_lease` is `false` (i.e. we have no intention of reclaiming dir leases), __dir_lease_check() returned `TOUCH` for every valid lease. `TOUCH` moves the dentry to the tail of the list and resets `di->time` via __dentry_dir_lease_touch(), so a walk over N valid leases pointlessly rewrote the list, refreshed the timestamps (preventing them from ever aging out) and always drained `nr_to_scan`, guaranteeing the `-EAGAIN` requeue. Fix this in three steps: - Return `KEEP` instead of `TOUCH` when `expire_dir_lease` is `false`. If we are not going to reclaim the lease, leave it in place instead of churning the list and resetting its timestamp; the walk then terminates naturally (or via `STOP` at the first fresh lease). - Only return `-EAGAIN` from the first (dentry-lease) walk when something was actually freed. A full batch that frees nothing means retrying the same list immediately is futile; fall through to the dir-lease walk instead. - After both walks, bail out with success (0) when nothing was freed and there is no cap pressure (`count==0`). There is no reason to keep retrying when we are not over the cap limit and made no progress. Under real cap pressure (`count>0`) the reclaim path is unchanged and still retries via `-EAGAIN`. Without this patch, I saw 500 ceph_trim_dentries() calls per second on our web servers. This is very visible in `/proc/lock_stat` (5 minute capture): class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg &mdsc->dentry_list_lock: 126180 128218 0.04 8063.44 15986965.20 124.69 1573354 5296812 0.04 8291.28 74164526.48 14.00 ----------------------- &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 111736 [<000000007b11e319>] __ceph_dentry_dir_lease_touch+0x7c/0xa8 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 2631 [<0000000050597999>] __dentry_leases_walk+0x64/0x2c8 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 3878 [<00000000c0022f62>] __ceph_dentry_lease_touch+0x5c/0xa8 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 9973 [<000000002f27cb6f>] __dentry_lease_unlist+0x50/0xa0 ----------------------- &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 123621 [<0000000050597999>] __dentry_leases_walk+0x64/0x2c8 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 1822 [<000000007b11e319>] __ceph_dentry_dir_lease_touch+0x7c/0xa8 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 2720 [<000000002f27cb6f>] __dentry_lease_unlist+0x50/0xa0 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 55 [<00000000c0022f62>] __ceph_dentry_lease_touch+0x5c/0xa8 With this patch: class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total waittime-avg acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg &mdsc->dentry_list_lock: 1203 1215 0.16 408.88 33082.88 27.23 4320501 7357389 0.04 500.64 1961578.00 0.27 ----------------------- &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 1029 [<000000003c9aea8a>] __ceph_dentry_dir_lease_touch+0x7c/0xa8 &mdsc->dentry_list_lock 1 ---truncated---
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (high)+6
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | ≥ 37c4efc1ddf98ba8b234d116d863a9464445901e and < 5a541eb401acb89d791da41189d7a79220164b93≥ 37c4efc1ddf98ba8b234d116d863a9464445901e and < 37d6edb2f03b29399a3a337fae78674de51e1695≥ 37c4efc1ddf98ba8b234d116d863a9464445901e and < 3d122b2feb1dd76bb5041bdea5e1e1b007d8d415≥ 37c4efc1ddf98ba8b234d116d863a9464445901e and < e7d7aa7b730178278109c41fa1b17b06873065d5version 5.1 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 3.9 | 3.6 | 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | Linux via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67) Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 7.5
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
4 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 13h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 13h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98424 wifi: cfg80211: undo netns switch if renaming the wiphy fails 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98425 wifi: mac80211: don't warn when an IBSS has no channel to scan 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98426 wifi: mwifiex: fix IRQ leak using wrong index in MSI-X error path 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98427 net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call 1d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No FIRST EPSS score.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No CWE classification.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-89647 is "ceph: do not repeat ceph_trim_dentries() if no progress possible", rated High. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.