CVE-2026-89772

UNRATEDCVSS · not yet scoredTrending — 3 sources updated this week
—
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorLow exploitation likelihood right now — keep watching.
  • No CVSS published and no exploitation signals yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS v2: —Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

btrfs: write-protect folios during data writeback

commit 095be159f3eb ("btrfs: unify folio dirty flag clearing") replaced the folio_clear_dirty_for_io() call in extent_write_cache_pages() with a plain folio_test_dirty() check. Besides clearing the dirty flag, folio_clear_dirty_for_io() also calls folio_mkclean(), which write-protects the shared mmap PTEs mapping the folio. Note that we still do call folio_clear_dirty_for_io() later in submit_one_sector() when we clear dirty on the last sector of the folio (the only sector for non-subpage cases). But we lost this early call in extent_write_cache_pages().

Without the extra write-protection, a process with the file mmap-ed can modify a sector while it is being used by writeback in a way that expects a stable folio (checksumming, compressing, copying, etc...) without faulting, which manifests as a handful of concrete bugs.

  • For large folios or subpage sectorsize, it is possible to submit a bio
which does not cover the whole folio. When this happens, we will have a bio in flight for a folio that we have *not* called folio_clear_dirty_for_io() on. If a task with an existing mmap-ed PTE writes (without faulting..) in this window, it can result in corruptions. If the write arrives while the checksumming or writing itself is underway, this can result in an invalid checksum and later corruption reports on read. If the write arrives after checksumming/writing is done but before the last sector dirty is cleared, then the write is present in page cache but doesn't affect the dirty tracking and will be lost when the folio is fully finished being submitted and the dirty bit is cleared. This results in losing the write even if fsync() is called.
  • For zoned submissions which are done in batch separate from the main
extent_writepage() loop, we also risk csum violations for those submissions. Zoned writes are clamped to max_zone_append_size and are not aligned with folios, so a submission can span two folios. The first folio being processed in extent_write_cache_pages() will call extent_write_locked_range() which will submit the partial range of the next folio, while the rest of that folio could still be dirty. So clearing dirty on the submitted sectors doesn't call folio_clear_dirty_for_io() and we have the same issue. Since extent_write_cache_pages() skips these batch submitted folios (they are already marked for writeback from submission by the preceding folio), we must add the extra write protection in lock_delalloc_folios().
  • For inline extents this will subtly risk losing writes that happen
after/while we copy the inline extent but before we clear dirty on the folio.
  • For folios spanning EOF, mmap could tamper with the zeroed bytes past
EOF and cause them to be persisted where future faults would improperly see them instead of zeros.
  • Finally, for compressed extents, we risk modifying the folios while we
work on compressing them which will result in corrupted compressed data. Specifically, in run_delalloc_compressed() we queue up work to do compress_file_range() in BTRFS_COMPRESSION_CHUNK_SIZE (512K) chunks which will call btrfs_folio_clamp_clear_dirty() on the range. For non-subpage, this will always clear the whole folio, safely. For subpage, we risk a partial clear here as well. In particular, imagine a 2M folio broken up into 512K chunks of work which might start compression work on one chunk before all the chunks compress_file_range() workers have gotten far enough to finish clearing all the dirty bitmaps of the folio and getting to folio_clear_dirty_for_io(). Large folios on the edges of submission ranges are similarly at risk to be only partly cleared. This particular gap was introduced by a second patch in the same series: commit a4ef54dbb576 ("btrfs: make extent_range_clear_dirty_for_io() to handle sector size < page size cases")

We cannot simply restore the call to folio_clear ---truncated---

CVSS v3
—
EchelonGraph score
Not yet assessedNo source has published severity data for this CVE yet — no CVSS score from NVD or a CNA, no GitHub advisory, and it is not in CISA KEV. This is not a rating of zero; we cannot assess it yet.
EG Score
—
EG Risk
—
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
8th
KEV
Not listed

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

Published

September 11, 2026

Last Modified

September 11, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-89772(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (178 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.6-1: fixed in 7.2.6-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 11× in last 7d / 39× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 1 repeat row among the latest 45 is merged into the row it repeats.

  1. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  2. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  3. 2026-10-12 14:48 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-11 19:15 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-11 16:31 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  7. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-10 11:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  9. 2026-10-09 20:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  10. 2026-10-08 17:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  11. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  12. 2026-10-07 07:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  13. 2026-10-06 15:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  14. 2026-10-05 17:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  15. 2026-10-04 23:22 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  16. 2026-10-04 03:17 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  17. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  18. 2026-09-30 22:57 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-09-30 22:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  20. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  21. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  22. 2026-09-27 18:38 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  23. 2026-09-27 13:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  24. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  25. 2026-09-24 14:18 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
Show 19 more
  1. 2026-09-24 14:04 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  2. 2026-09-23 17:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  3. 2026-09-22 16:01 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  4. 2026-09-21 21:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  5. 2026-09-21 09:36 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  6. 2026-09-20 20:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  7. 2026-09-18 19:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  8. 2026-09-18 05:17 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  9. 2026-09-17 19:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  10. 2026-09-16 14:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  11. 2026-09-16 05:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  12. 2026-09-15 03:12 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  13. 2026-09-15 00:57 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-09-15 00:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xrh7-4f5f-76f9
  15. 2026-09-13 16:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  16. 2026-09-12 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  17. 2026-09-11 20:36 UTCNVD update
  18. 2026-09-11 19:54 UTCEG score recompute
  19. 2026-09-11 19:53 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-89772?
CVE-2026-89772 is a vulnerability whose severity is not yet rated; its CVE record was published on September 11, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: write-protect folios during data writeback commit 095be159f3eb ("btrfs: unify folio dirty flag clearing") replaced the foliocleardirtyforio() call in extentwritecache_pages() with a plain foliotestdirty() check. Besides…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-89772 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-89772 was published on September 11, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of September 11, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-89772 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-89772 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (8th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-89772?
A fix for CVE-2026-89772 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-89772 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-89772

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-89772?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.