Vulnerability Database

383,211

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2026-89560

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

landlock: Require LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG for whiteout creation

Whiteout objects are used in the upper layer of an OverlayFS to indicate that the file with this name does not exist in the unified view, even if it is present in one of the lower layer file systems.

For the userspace implementations of OverlayFS (fuse-overlayfs), whiteout objects can be created from userspace as well:

  • mknod(2) with S_IFCHR and makedev(0, 0)
  • renameat2(2) with RENAME_WHITEOUT, creating the whiteout in the old place of the moved file.

This commit guards whiteout creation in both of these cases with LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG. Whiteout objects are not considered character devices and are not bound to a driver.

LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG describes the same permission class as a whiteout object: creating one is the only S_IFCHR creation that the VFS exempts from CAP_MKNOD, so it is as unprivileged as creating a regular file, while LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_CHAR and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK keep meaning the creation of devices that expose a kernel interface [1].

For the mknod(2) case, introduce a Landlock erratum. The creation of whiteout objects through mknod(2) was previously guarded using LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_CHAR, and it is now guarded using LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG.

For the renameat2(2) case, fix a bug: Before this commit, renameat2(2) with RENAME_WHITEOUT would create a directory entry even when all LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_* rights were denied.

This does not affect normal renames within layered OverlayFS mounts: When doing a regular rename() on a mounted fuse-overlayfs, it is the fuse-overlayfs daemon that exercises renameat2() with RENAME_WHITEOUT, and only the Landlock domain of that daemon is checked there.

Depends-on: 49c9e09d9610 ("landlock: Fix handling of disconnected directories") Depends-on: fe72ce6710cb ("landlock: Add errata documentation section") [mic: Record why LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG is the matching right, and add link(2) to the user doc]

  • Published: Sep 11, 2026
  • Updated: Sep 12, 2026
  • CVE: CVE-2026-89560
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

No technical information available.

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.