In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ntfs: skip extent mft records in writeback to prevent deadlock
This patch fixes the ABBA deadlock between extent_lock and extent
mrec_lock triggered by xfstests generic/113, that occurs since the commit
6994acf33bae ("ntfs: use base mft_no when looking up base inode for
extent record").
Path A (inode writeback):
VFS writeback
-> ntfs_write_inode()
-> __ntfs_write_inode()
-> mutex_lock(&ni->extent_lock)
-> mutex_lock(&tni->mrec_lock)
Path B (MFT folio writeback):
VFS writeback of $MFT dirty folios
-> ntfs_mft_writepages()
-> ntfs_write_mft_block()
-> ntfs_may_write_mft_record()
-> holds one extent mrec_lock from a previous iteration
-> tries to acquire another base inode extent_lock
By removing all extent_lock and extent mrec_lock acquisition from the MFT
folio writeback path, the ABBA lock ordering is eliminated:
Path A: __ntfs_write_inode(): extent_lock -> mrec_lock
Path B (removed): ntfs_write_mft_block(): mrec_lock -> extent_lock
Path B is always redundant for extent records because:
- mark_mft_record_dirty(ext_ni) does NOT dirty the MFT folio.
It only sets NInoDirty(ext_ni) and marks the base VFS inode dirty
via __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_DATASYNC), which triggers Path A.
Therefore, normal extent modifications never create a situation where
the MFT folio is dirty and Path B is not scheduled.
- The MFT folio only gets dirtied via ntfs_mft_mark_dirty() inside
ntfs_mft_record_alloc(). But all identified callers in attrib.c
(ntfs_attr_add, ntfs_attr_record_move_away,
ntfs_attr_make_non_resident, ntfs_attr_record_resize) follow through
with mark_mft_record_dirty(), which triggers Path A to write the
complete record.
- ntfs_evict_big_inode() calls ntfs_commit_inode() before freeing extent
inodes, ensuring all dirty extents are flushed via Path A before the
base inode leaves the icache.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% 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