In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfs: check for deleted cursors when revalidating two btrees
The free space and inode btree repair functions will rebuild both btrees
at the same time, after which it needs to evaluate both btrees to
confirm that the corruptions are gone.
However, Jiaming Zhang ran syzbot and produced a crash in the second
xchk_allocbt call. His root-cause analysis is as follows (with minor
corrections):
In xrep_revalidate_allocbt(), xchk_allocbt() is called twice (first
for BNOBT, second for CNTBT). The cause of this issue is that the
first call nullified the cursor required by the second call.
Let's first enter xrep_revalidate_allocbt() via following call chain:
xfs_file_ioctl() ->
xfs_ioc_scrubv_metadata() ->
xfs_scrub_metadata() ->
sc->ops->repair_eval(sc) ->
xrep_revalidate_allocbt()
xchk_allocbt() is called twice in this function. In the first call:
/* Note that sc->sm->sm_type is XFS_SCRUB_TYPE_BNOPT now */
xchk_allocbt() ->
xchk_btree() ->
bs->scrub_rec(bs, recp) ->
xchk_allocbt_rec() ->
xchk_allocbt_xref() ->
xchk_allocbt_xref_other()
since sm_type is XFS_SCRUB_TYPE_BNOBT, pur is set to &sc->sa.cnt_cur.
Kernel called xfs_alloc_get_rec() and returned -EFSCORRUPTED. Call
chain:
xfs_alloc_get_rec() ->
xfs_btree_get_rec() ->
xfs_btree_check_block() ->
(XFS_IS_CORRUPT || XFS_TEST_ERROR), the former is false and the latter
is true, return -EFSCORRUPTED. This should be caused by
ioctl$XFS_IOC_ERROR_INJECTION I guess.
Back to xchk_allocbt_xref_other(), after receiving -EFSCORRUPTED from
xfs_alloc_get_rec(), kernel called xchk_should_check_xref(). In this
function, *curpp (points to sc->sa.cnt_cur) is nullified.
Back to xrep_revalidate_allocbt(), since sc->sa.cnt_cur has been
nullified, it then triggered null-ptr-deref via xchk_allocbt() (second
call) -> xchk_btree().
So. The bnobt revalidation failed on a cross-reference attempt, so we
deleted the cntbt cursor, and then crashed when we tried to revalidate
the cntbt. Therefore, check for a null cntbt cursor before that
revalidation, and mark the repair incomplete. Also we can ignore the
second tree entirely if the first tree was rebuilt but is already
corrupt.
Apply the same fix to xrep_revalidate_iallocbt because it has the same
problem.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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: 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.
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