In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: adjust subpage bit start based on sectorsize
When running machines with 64k page size and a 16k nodesize we started
seeing tree log corruption in production. This turned out to be because
we were not writing out dirty blocks sometimes, so this in fact affects
all metadata writes.
When writing out a subpage EB we scan the subpage bitmap for a dirty
range. If the range isn't dirty we do
bit_start++;
to move onto the next bit. The problem is the bitmap is based on the
number of sectors that an EB has. So in this case, we have a 64k
pagesize, 16k nodesize, but a 4k sectorsize. This means our bitmap is 4
bits for every node. With a 64k page size we end up with 4 nodes per
page.
To make this easier this is how everything looks
[0 16k 32k 48k ] logical address
[0 4 8 12 ] radix tree offset
[ 64k page ] folio
[ 16k eb ][ 16k eb ][ 16k eb ][ 16k eb ] extent buffers
[ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ] bitmap
Now we use all of our addressing based on fs_info->sectorsize_bits, so
as you can see the above our 16k eb->start turns into radix entry 4.
When we find a dirty range for our eb, we correctly do bit_start +=
sectors_per_node, because if we start at bit 0, the next bit for the
next eb is 4, to correspond to eb->start 16k.
However if our range is clean, we will do bit_start++, which will now
put us offset from our radix tree entries.
In our case, assume that the first time we check the bitmap the block is
not dirty, we increment bit_start so now it == 1, and then we loop
around and check again. This time it is dirty, and we go to find that
start using the following equation
start = folio_start + bit_start * fs_info->sectorsize;
so in the case above, eb->start 0 is now dirty, and we calculate start
as
0 + 1 * fs_info->sectorsize = 4096
4096 >> 12 = 1
Now we're looking up the radix tree for 1, and we won't find an eb.
What's worse is now we're using bit_start == 1, so we do bit_start +=
sectors_per_node, which is now 5. If that eb is dirty we will run into
the same thing, we will look at an offset that is not populated in the
radix tree, and now we're skipping the writeout of dirty extent buffers.
The best fix for this is to not use sectorsize_bits to address nodes,
but that's a larger change. Since this is a fs corruption problem fix
it simply by always using sectors_per_node to increment the start bit.
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 2026-10-24). 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