CVE-2026-90234 — NFS: Return a delegation the client fails to record
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: NFS: Return a delegation the client fails to record When an NFS server grants a delegation in an OPEN reply, nfs_inode_set_delegation() records it on the client. However, three of its error flows return without sending DELEGRETURN. A delegation can be relinquished only by DELEGRETURN (RFC 8881 Section 20.2.4), so dropping one silently leaves the server believing the client still holds it. If the server happens to recall that delegation, the client answers CB_RECALL with NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE because it has no record of the stateid. The server revokes the delegation and moves it onto its cl_revoked list, because the client never sends the FREE_STATEID that would drain it. Every subsequent SEQUENCE reply then carries SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED, and the client's state manager loops issuing TEST_STATEID across its delegations without ever clearing the condition. The window is easy to reach now that a server offers a write delegation on any write OPEN: a delegation recalled for one opener races a re-open that the server answers with a fresh write delegation. Instead of dropping it, hand the delegation back during these error flows.
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
- EPSS 0.5% (30-day exploitation probability)+6
- 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 | ≥ ade04647dd56881e285983af3db702d56ee97e86 and < 6822ba1ae9b6df6a094f7f8998f1da734c85fa19≥ ade04647dd56881e285983af3db702d56ee97e86 and < 92533e49fe3c455088657b862cf3562260c0ce25≥ ade04647dd56881e285983af3db702d56ee97e86 and < 220af23d863995091f0edeb1e6aa0945b3db8b37version 4.0 | 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 | — | — | GitHub, Inc. via GitHub Security Advisories |
| 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) EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 14, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.49%
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.
- 2× References added · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
5 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 1d
- 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 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-2026-90234 is "NFS: Return a delegation the client fails to record", 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. EPSS 0.49% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. 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.