In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: fix tree mod log mishandling of reallocated nodes
We have been seeing the following panic in production
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/tree-mod-log.c:677!
invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
RIP: 0010:tree_mod_log_rewind+0x1b4/0x200
RSP: 0000:ffffc9002c02f890 EFLAGS: 00010293
RAX: 0000000000000003 RBX: ffff8882b448c700 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000008000 RSI: 00000000000000a7 RDI: ffff88877d831c00
RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 000000000000009f R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000100c40 R12: 0000000000000001
R13: ffff8886c26d6a00 R14: ffff88829f5424f8 R15: ffff88877d831a00
FS: 00007fee1d80c780(0000) GS:ffff8890400c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007fee1963a020 CR3: 0000000434f33002 CR4: 00000000007706e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
btrfs_get_old_root+0x12b/0x420
btrfs_search_old_slot+0x64/0x2f0
? tree_mod_log_oldest_root+0x3d/0xf0
resolve_indirect_ref+0xfd/0x660
? ulist_alloc+0x31/0x60
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x114/0x2c0
find_parent_nodes+0x97a/0x17e0
? ulist_alloc+0x30/0x60
btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0x97/0x150
iterate_extent_inodes+0x154/0x370
? btrfs_search_path_in_tree+0x240/0x240
iterate_inodes_from_logical+0x98/0xd0
? btrfs_search_path_in_tree+0x240/0x240
btrfs_ioctl_logical_to_ino+0xd9/0x180
btrfs_ioctl+0xe2/0x2ec0
? __mod_memcg_lruvec_state+0x3d/0x280
? do_sys_openat2+0x6d/0x140
? kretprobe_dispatcher+0x47/0x70
? kretprobe_rethook_handler+0x38/0x50
? rethook_trampoline_handler+0x82/0x140
? arch_rethook_trampoline_callback+0x3b/0x50
? kmem_cache_free+0xfb/0x270
? do_sys_openat2+0xd5/0x140
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x71/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
Which is this code in tree_mod_log_rewind()
switch (tm->op) {
case BTRFS_MOD_LOG_KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING:
BUG_ON(tm->slot < n);
This occurs because we replay the nodes in order that they happened, and
when we do a REPLACE we will log a REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING for every slot,
starting at 0. 'n' here is the number of items in this block, which in
this case was 1, but we had 2 REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING operations.
The actual root cause of this was that we were replaying operations for
a block that shouldn't have been replayed. Consider the following
sequence of events
- We have an already modified root, and we do a btrfs_get_tree_mod_seq().
- We begin removing items from this root, triggering KEY_REPLACE for
it's child slots.
- We remove one of the 2 children this root node points to, thus triggering
the root node promotion of the remaining child, and freeing this node.
- We modify a new root, and re-allocate the above node to the root node of
this other root.
The tree mod log looks something like this
logical 0 op KEY_REPLACE (slot 1) seq 2
logical 0 op KEY_REMOVE (slot 1) seq 3
logical 0 op KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING (slot 0) seq 4
logical 4096 op LOG_ROOT_REPLACE (old logical 0) seq 5
logical 8192 op KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING (slot 1) seq 6
logical 8192 op KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING (slot 0) seq 7
logical 0 op LOG_ROOT_REPLACE (old logical 8192) seq 8
>From here the bug is triggered by the following steps
- Call btrfs_get_old_root() on the new_root.
- We call tree_mod_log_oldest_root(btrfs_root_node(new_root)), which is
currently logical 0.
- tree_mod_log_oldest_root() calls tree_mod_log_search_oldest(), which
gives us the KEY_REPLACE seq 2, and since that's not a
LOG_ROOT_REPLACE we incorrectly believe that we don't have an old
root, because we expect that the most recent change should be a
LOG_ROOT_REPLACE.
- Back in tree_mod_log_oldest_root() we don't have a LOG_ROOT_REPLACE,
so we don't set old_root, we simply use our e
---truncated---
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it