CVE-2026-98995 — namespace: reset the old parent's ->overmount in mnt_change_mountpoint()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: namespace: reset the old parent's ->overmount in mnt_change_mountpoint() __umount_mnt() resets ->overmount of the parent when it unmounts the mount that overmounts it. mnt_change_mountpoint() doesn't. It moves the mount to its new parent and leaves the old one pointing at it. For a mount that is moved beneath in attach_recursive_mnt() that doesn't matter. The new mount has already reset ->overmount of the old parent by the time the old top mount is moved onto it. It matters for reparent() though. propagate_umount() moves a surviving overmount onto the first ancestor that isn't going to be unmounted. The mount it was taken from is unmounted immediately afterwards. If a file descriptor keeps that unmounted mount alive ->overmount points at the moved mount. That's a dangling pointer and UAF as the moved mount is unmounted and freed. do_lock_mount() follows ->overmount from the target path under mount_lock. With a file descriptor on such a mount as the target of a mount beneath topmost_overmount() walks into the freed mount and do_lock_mount() takes references on whatever it finds there. So reset ->overmount of the old parent in mnt_change_mountpoint() the same way __umount_mnt() does. A mount's ->overmount is then always a mount that is attached to it.
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 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
- 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).
- 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 | ≥ ffdc52fbbd5835a936ad683c943d6d103a2d4514 and < 5e0a1f2c753a79749bc2ead3ae2f2ede3941daa5≥ ffdc52fbbd5835a936ad683c943d6d103a2d4514 and < 08d575ee89393fd812dbdca7b5d7b4574cd5a564≥ ffdc52fbbd5835a936ad683c943d6d103a2d4514 and < 476ef286a7a5db8bda51325dc0c45887b4d99d9aversion 6.17 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | 1.8 | 5.9 | 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67 via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.8 | CVSS 3.1 | High | — | — | Linux via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67) EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 24, 2026 → Oct 30, 2026 · 7 reading(s) · max 0.21%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- CVSS changed · 7.8
- Record published
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 2× References added · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 24, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 23, 2026 – Oct 23, 2026
References
5 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Unknown CVE-2026-99216 Drivers: hv: Don't reset VMBus connection state on error/exit paths 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-99215 power: supply: core: prevent unregistering a power supply while a callback runs 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-99207 scsi: target: Disable interrupts while holding delayed_cmd_lock 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-99208 drm/xe/oa: Zero OA buffer at allocation 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-99209 drm/xe: skip eviction of a BO with no resource 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-99210 accel/rocket: clear rdev on device init failure 2d
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-2026-98995 is "namespace: reset the old parent's ->overmount in mnt_change_mountpoint()", 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 7.8 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.16% 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.