CVE-2026-112915

filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.20.4 until 4.2.1, ReadWriteLock can open a crafted SQLite lock database without bounding schema and query work, allowing another local user who can replace the database to make acquisition stall or hang; versions from 3.20.4 expose this on initial per-instance opening, and versions from 3.30.0 repeat the exposure on every acquisition. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.

filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.20.4 until 4.2.1, ReadWriteLock can open a crafted SQLite lock database without bounding schema and query work, allowing another local user who can replace the database to make acquisition stall or hang; versions from 3.20.4 expose this on initial per-instance opening, and versions from 3.30.0 repeat the exposure on every acquisition. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.

ReadWriteLock and AsyncReadWriteLock (the SQLite-backed reader/writer lock) run PRAGMA journal_mode=MEMORY on a fresh connection for every acquire. That statement makes SQLite load the whole schema (the sqlite_master table, which lists every table and index with its CREATE text) of whatever file sits at the lock path. The caller's timeout reaches SQLite only as busy_timeout, which bounds waits for another connection's lock, not schema loading. The only content checks reject non-regular files and WAL mode (write-ahead log, an SQLite mode that keeps changes in a side file). A local user who can place or overwrite the file at a ReadWriteLock's database path can therefore make every acquire_read / acquire_write of every process using that lock ignore its timeout and blocking=False. That position needs a non-sticky shared directory, or a database owned by the user running the lock (below: the lock user) that other users may write.

One 37 KB crafted file stalls each acquire for as long as its author chooses while the process allocates about 1 GB. A second 28 KB layout makes the acquire of a free lock run without end, spinning at 100% CPU and ignoring Ctrl-C. The effect is availability only: the other user reads nothing and corrupts nothing. Affected versions are filelock 3.20.4 through 4.2.0.

Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported this in private as ANT-2026-NFPRHMYJ [medium, CWE-400]: ReadWriteLock: crafted lock database hangs acquire regardless of timeout.

Severity

CVSS 3.1 CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H scores 5.5 (Medium). AV:L (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. PR:L (low privileges): an ordinary account is enough. AC:L (low attack complexity): the other user plants one file; no race. UI:N (no user interaction). A:H (high availability impact): every acquire of every process using the lock runs for as long as that user chose, or does not return, with timeout and blocking=False ignored and SIGINT not delivered, so only killing the process ends it. C:N and I:N (no confidentiality or integrity impact): the other user reads nothing and corrupts nothing. S:U (scope unchanged).

Classification from the external review: conditional security, an availability concern only when an untrusted actor can supply the database file (it needs a writable or replaceable database path). The scanner rated it medium. The review agrees with the mechanism and the precondition.

Scope and preconditions

• The other party is a different local account that can create or replace the file at the lock path. One way: the lock directory is writable by that account and not sticky (the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove or rename it), for example a group-writable project or cache directory. There the account can be the first to create the database, or rename the lock user's database aside and put the crafted one in its place. The other way: the lock user's own database is writable by that account (0666), which is the setup a lock shared between accounts needs. In a 1777 directory the scanner wrote the crafted file over such a database in place, and the lock user's next acquire hung. The lock user must be able to open the file read-write, so a file the other user creates is 0666.
• Sticky directories and kernel settings. In a sticky world-writable directory such as /tmp, Linux with fs.protected_regular=2 (a kernel setting) refuses the lock user's O_CREAT open of a file owned by the other account with EACCES. A database owned by the other user does not work there. That does not cover a 0666 database owned by the lock user. The scanner did not test systems with fs.protected_regular=0 (the kernel's own default).
• Platform. Every platform runs the same statements. On Windows the documentation already requires a lock directory that untrusted users cannot write, so the shared-directory setup is outside what the project…

filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.20.4 until 4.2.1, ReadWriteLock can open a crafted SQLite lock database without bounding schema and query work, allowing another local user who can replace the database to make acquisition stall or hang; versions from 3.20.4 expose this on initial per-instance opening, and versions from 3.30.0 repeat the exposure on every acquisition. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.

filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.20.4 until 4.2.1, ReadWriteLock can open a crafted SQLite lock database without bounding schema and query work, allowing another local user who can replace the database to make acquisition stall or hang; versions from 3.20.4 expose this on initial per-instance opening, and versions from 3.30.0 repeat the exposure on every acquisition. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.

filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.20.4 until 4.2.1, ReadWriteLock can open a crafted SQLite lock database without bounding schema and query work, allowing another local user who can replace the database to make acquisition stall or hang; versions from 3.20.4 expose this on initial per-instance opening, and versions from 3.30.0 repeat the exposure on every acquisition. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.

ReadWriteLock and AsyncReadWriteLock (the SQLite-backed reader/writer lock) run PRAGMA journal_mode=MEMORY on a fresh connection for every acquire. That statement makes SQLite load the whole schema (the sqlite_master table, which lists every table and index with its CREATE text) of whatever file sits at the lock path. The caller's timeout reaches SQLite only as busy_timeout, which bounds waits for another connection's lock, not schema loading. The only content checks reject non-regular files and WAL mode (write-ahead log, an SQLite mode that keeps changes in a side file). A local user who can place or overwrite the file at a ReadWriteLock's database path can therefore make every acquire_read / acquire_write of every process using that lock ignore its timeout and blocking=False. That position needs a non-sticky shared directory, or a database owned by the user running the lock (below: the lock user) that other users may write.

One 37 KB crafted file stalls each acquire for as long as its author chooses while the process allocates about 1 GB. A second 28 KB layout makes the acquire of a free lock run without end, spinning at 100% CPU and ignoring Ctrl-C. The effect is availability only: the other user reads nothing and corrupts nothing. Affected versions are filelock 3.20.4 through 4.2.0.

Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported this in private as ANT-2026-NFPRHMYJ [medium, CWE-400]: ReadWriteLock: crafted lock database hangs acquire regardless of timeout.

Severity

CVSS 3.1 CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H scores 5.5 (Medium). AV:L (local): the other user needs an account on the same host. PR:L (low privileges): an ordinary account is enough. AC:L (low attack complexity): the other user plants one file; no race. UI:N (no user interaction). A:H (high availability impact): every acquire of every process using the lock runs for as long as that user chose, or does not return, with timeout and blocking=False ignored and SIGINT not delivered, so only killing the process ends it. C:N and I:N (no confidentiality or integrity impact): the other user reads nothing and corrupts nothing. S:U (scope unchanged).

Classification from the external review: conditional security, an availability concern only when an untrusted actor can supply the database file (it needs a writable or replaceable database path). The scanner rated it medium. The review agrees with the mechanism and the precondition.

Scope and preconditions

• The other party is a different local account that can create or replace the file at the lock path. One way: the lock directory is writable by that account and not sticky (the sticky bit is a directory flag that lets only a file's owner remove or rename it), for example a group-writable project or cache directory. There the account can be the first to create the database, or rename the lock user's database aside and put the crafted one in its place. The other way: the lock user's own database is writable by that account (0666), which is the setup a lock shared between accounts needs. In a 1777 directory the scanner wrote the crafted file over such a database in place, and the lock user's next acquire hung. The lock user must be able to open the file read-write, so a file the other user creates is 0666.
• Sticky directories and kernel settings. In a sticky world-writable directory such as /tmp, Linux with fs.protected_regular=2 (a kernel setting) refuses the lock user's O_CREAT open of a file owned by the other account with EACCES. A database owned by the other user does not work there. That does not cover a 0666 database owned by the lock user. The scanner did not test systems with fs.protected_regular=0 (the kernel's own default).
• Platform. Every platform runs the same statements. On Windows the documentation already requires a lock directory that untrusted users cannot write, so the shared-directory setup is outside what the project…

filelock is a platform-independent file lock for Python. From 3.20.4 until 4.2.1, ReadWriteLock can open a crafted SQLite lock database without bounding schema and query work, allowing another local user who can replace the database to make acquisition stall or hang; versions from 3.20.4 expose this on initial per-instance opening, and versions from 3.30.0 repeat the exposure on every acquisition. This issue is fixed in version 4.2.1.