Answer in brief
CVE-2026-43245 records a High severity (CVSS 7.5) vulnerability in ntfs: ->d_compare() must not block. 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.
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.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=a3a956c78efaa202b1d75190136671cf6e87bfbe <02ecc0978c459fd90bb24b2a946dd16d43e68fe5 || >=a3a956c78efaa202b1d75190136671cf6e87bfbe <1be7ca86ce1794d966fda5d82181bc978b150fbc || >=a3a956c78efaa202b1d75190136671cf6e87bfbe <142c444a395f4d26055c8a4473e228bb86283f1e || >=a3a956c78efaa202b1d75190136671cf6e87bfbe <fb4b1f969ba01fa1d4088467a02fc1e5f0806710 || >=a3a956c78efaa202b1d75190136671cf6e87bfbe <ca2a04e84af79596e5cd9cfe697d5122ec39c8ce | 02ecc0978c459fd90bb24b2a946dd16d43e68fe5, 1be7ca86ce1794d966fda5d82181bc978b150fbc, 142c444a395f4d26055c8a4473e228bb86283f1e, fb4b1f969ba01fa1d4088467a02fc1e5f0806710, ca2a04e84af79596e5cd9cfe697d5122ec39c8ce |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 6.2 | Not reported |
Published upstream
May 6, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ntfs: ->d_compare() must not block ... so don't use __getname() there. Switch it (and ntfs_d_hash(), while we are at it) to kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOWAIT). Yes, ntfs_d_hash() almost certainly can do with smaller allocations, but let ntfs folks deal with that - keep the allocation size as-is for now. Stop abusing names_cachep in ntfs, period - various uses of that thing in there have nothing to do with pathnames; just use k[mz]alloc() and be done with that. For now let's keep sizes as-in, but AFAICS none of the users actually want PATH_MAX.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.