vulnerability / NVI-00009005 / Revision 3
filelock: SoftReadWriteLock holder refresh writes through a hard link and hangs on a named pipe that another local user renames over its record
GitHub lists this reviewed advisory for filelock. Published version ranges and source prerequisites are shown below; this is not an inspection of a visitor’s application.
This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.
01 / Meaning
Why it matters
Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.
6.1 medium
GitHub source severity; exploitability and local consequence require separate evidence.
As of · GitHub Advisory Database
6.1 MEDIUM (3.1)
security-advisories@github.com severity; no combined Null risk score.
0.233%
FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.14208. Missing scores are unknown.
As of · FIRST EPSS
02 / Applicability
The affected context
Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.
filelock
source listed>= 4.0.0, <= 4.2.0
`SoftReadWriteLock` (and `AsyncSoftReadWriteLock`, which wraps one) refreshes its holder record (the file under `.rw/holders/` that says a process holds or wants the lock) on every poll of a waiting acquire and on every heartbeat (the periodic refresh a holder runs to keep its record fresh). It does so by reopening `.rw/holders/` by name with a plain blocking `O_WRONLY | O_NOFOLLOW` open and writing at offset 0, without checking what it opened. `O_NOFOLLOW` makes the open fail only when the final name is a symbolic link (a file that redirects to another path). A different local user (the other user below) who owns the lock's `.rw` tree reads the token of the user running the lock (the lock user below) from the `holders/` listing and renames another node over the record. The other user owns the tree because it created it first in a sticky directory such as `/tmp` (the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner rename or remove it), or because it can write a lock directory without the sticky bit. A FIFO (a named pipe: a file whose open for writing blocks until some process opens it for reading) makes the lock user's `write_lock()` / `read_lock()
03 / Response
What to do next
- investigate
Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.
Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS
A fixed release is not deployment evidence.
Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.
04 / Limits
What this report cannot establish
- Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
- NVD lastModified does not establish freshness of every associated CPE record.
05 / Provenance
Sources you can inspect
Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.
- GHSA-fj95-fr6c-h845 ↗
GitHub Advisory Database · vendor advisory
Observed . GitHub Advisory Database; CC-BY-4.0. Each advisory links its original attribution. Null normalizes fields.
- CVE-2026-112934 ↗
NIST National Vulnerability Database · official catalog
Observed . This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- CVE-2026-112934 ↗
FIRST EPSS · official catalog
Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.
Public revision history
Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.
- Revision 3 ·
Source facts changed; compare the preserved prior revision.
- Revision 2 ·
Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.
- Revision 1 ·
First indexed by Null; source disclosure date is shown separately.