HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2024 42256 cifs fix server re repick on subrequest retry
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Contribute to HOL
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
High · CVSS 7.5CVE-2024-42256

cifs: Fix server re-repick on subrequest retryCVE-2024-42256

Answer in brief

CVE-2024-42256 records a High severity (CVSS 7.5) vulnerability in cifs: Fix server re-repick on subrequest retry. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Aug 8, 2024Updated Aug 5, 2026Source checked Nov 5, 2026First seen by HOL Aug 5, 2026Material review Aug 5, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
High · CVSS 7.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 7.5. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
Linux/Linuxgeneric>=3ee1a1fc39819906f04d6c62c180e760cd3a689d <b1d0a566769b6fb3795b5289fc1daf9e0638d97a || >=3ee1a1fc39819906f04d6c62c180e760cd3a689d <de40579b903883274fe203865f29d66b168b7236b1d0a566769b6fb3795b5289fc1daf9e0638d97a, de40579b903883274fe203865f29d66b168b7236
Linux/Linuxgeneric6.10Not reported

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for Linux/Linux, Linux/Linux.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update Linux/Linux to b1d0a566769b6fb3795b5289fc1daf9e0638d97a if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Aug 8, 2024

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Aug 5, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Aug 5, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
Upstream source description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cifs: Fix server re-repick on subrequest retry When a subrequest is marked for needing retry, netfs will call cifs_prepare_write() which will make cifs repick the server for the op before renegotiating credits; it then calls cifs_issue_write() which invokes smb2_async_writev() - which re-repicks the server. If a different server is then selected, this causes the increment of server->in_flight to happen against one record and the decrement to happen against another, leading to misaccounting. Fix this by just removing the repick code in smb2_async_writev(). As this is only called from netfslib-driven code, cifs_prepare_write() should always have been called first, and so server should never be NULL and the preparatory step is repeated in the event that we do a retry. The problem manifests as a warning looking something like: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 72896 at fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c:97 smb2_add_credits+0x3f0/0x9e0 [cifs] ... RIP: 0010:smb2_add_credits+0x3f0/0x9e0 [cifs] ... smb2_writev_callback+0x334/0x560 [cifs] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x77a/0x11b0 [cifs] kthread+0x187/0x1d0 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x60 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 Which may be triggered by a number of different xfstests running against an Azure server in multichannel mode. generic/249 seems the most repeatable, but generic/215, generic/249 and generic/308 may also show it.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Nov 5, 2026
References
2 linked sources
Open source record