CVE-2026-64262

What the bug is

When io_uring delivers task work with tw.cancel set (PF_EXITING, PF_KTHREAD fallback, or percpu_ref_is_dying on the ring context), fuse_uring_send_in_task() takes the cancel branch, assigns -ECANCELED, and falls through to fuse_uring_send(). That path only flips the entry to FRRS_USERSPACE and completes the io_uring cmd; it never discharges the ring entry's owning reference to the fuse_req that fuse_uring_add_req_to_ring_ent() handed it at dispatch time. fuse_uring_send_in_task() tw.cancel == true err = -ECANCELED fuse_uring_send(ent, cmd, err, issue_flags) ent->state = FRRS_USERSPACE list_move(&ent->list, &queue->ent_in_userspace) ent->cmd = NULL io_uring_cmd_done(-ECANCELED) /* ent->fuse_req still set, req still hashed */ The fuse_req stays linked on fpq->processing[hash] and fuse_request_end() is never invoked. The originating syscall thread blocks in D-state in request_wait_answer() until fuse_abort_conn() runs, which can be the entire connection lifetime. For FR_BACKGROUND requests fc->num_background is never decremented either, so repeated cancels inflate the counter until max_background is hit and all later background ops stall. tw.cancel does not imply a connection abort (e.g. a single io_uring worker thread exits while the fuse connection stays up), so this cannot be left for fuse_abort_conn() to clean up. Ending the req but still routing the entry through fuse_uring_send() is not enough: that leaves a req-less entry on ent_in_userspace, and ent_list_request_expired() dereferences ent->fuse_req unconditionally on the head of that list, which would then NULL-deref. Fix the cancel branch to release the entry directly. Remove it from the queue, complete the io_uring cmd, end the fuse_req, free the entry, and drop its queue_refs (waking the teardown waiter if it was the last).

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

fs/fuse/dev_uring.c

What this is

FUSE FILESYSTEM [IO-URING]MAINTAINERS section matched on fs/fuse/dev_uring.c · fuse-devel@lists.linux.dev · Maintained

Check it on the machine

grep -wE 'CONFIG_FUSE_FS|CONFIG_FUSE_IO_URING' /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this code. Every release with an answer below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships. The build rule could not be established for 2 releases, so nothing is claimed about those.

• bookworm, trixie?
• forky, sidy

?

not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file

y

built into the kernel image on every flavour - only a patch removes it

Where a release above reads "not established", no build rule for the affected file was found in that release's kernel tree. That is a gap in this lookup, not a finding that the code is absent.

Build switches

CONFIG_FUSE_FS, CONFIG_FUSE_IO_URING

Reads as

all on means the file is compiled; any one off means it is not.

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published

2026-07-25 (3 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.16%, higher than 4.5% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

unimportantsource

Subsystem

fs/fuse

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
6.14	6.18.39	bb476ef8e102
6.14	7.1.4	4f45f276d5b4
6.14	7.2	bea4fe98204b