CVE-2026-97549

UNRATEDCVSS · not yet scoredTrending — 5 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

No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.

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

xfs: fix under-reservation of blocks when repairing sf directories

Whilst running QA on XFS for-next as of 7.3-rc2 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-n size=8192", I observed the following (trimmed) dmesg splat:

XFS: Assertion failed: args->total >= dp->i_nblocks - nblks, file: fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c, line: 2387 WARNING: fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:104 at assfail+0x46/0x4a [xfs], CPU#0: xfs_scrub/1426511 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 1426511 Comm: xfs_scrub Tainted: G W 7.3.0-rc2-djwx #rc2 PREEMPT(lazy) 6e418570b606a39783b0e7e7b30dc407b965f9e8 Tainted: [W]=WARN RIP: 0010:assfail+0x46/0x4a [xfs] RSP: 0018:ffffc900010d7890 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00000000ffffffd1 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000021 RDI: ffffffffa059fd38 RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 000000000000000a R11: 000000007fffffff R12: ffffc900010d7940 R13: ffff888368d8f980 R14: ffffc900010d7a48 R15: ffffc900010d78d0 FS: 00007f445c5ce680(0000) GS:ffff8884a97ea000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f443803b9a8 CR3: 0000000107a4b000 CR4: 00000000003506f0 Call Trace: xfs_da_grow_inode_int+0x2e0/0x300 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xfs_dir2_grow_inode+0x6e/0x150 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xfs_dir2_sf_to_block+0x149/0x870 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xrep_dir_swap_prep+0xe2/0x110 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xrep_dir_swap+0xfb/0x2f0 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xrep_dir_rebuild_tree+0x99/0x100 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xrep_directory+0x83/0x1c0 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xrep_attempt+0x4f/0x1e0 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xfs_scrub_metadata+0x393/0x5b0 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xfs_ioc_scrubv_metadata+0x306/0x570 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] xfs_file_ioctl+0xa4f/0x1150 [xfs 5de2257e14108c136f11317e6bbb8ac77efd392c] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x76/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x7a/0x3b0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53

This is a consequence of commit 0fe77e57588b98, which added the following assertion to xfs_da_grow_inode_int:

ASSERT(args->total >= dp->i_nblocks - nblks);

Tracing this back to xrep_dir_swap_prep, I noticed that the xfs_da_args object that's passed to xfs_dir2_sf_to_block sets args->total to 1. This is incorrect because mkfs set the directory block size to 8k and the filesystem block size to 4k. In other words, args->total should be 2 here, not 1.

Dave Chinner tripped over the same problem with the same branch through a different channel -- his test setup set the fs block size to 1k, in which case the directory block size is still set to 4k. Here, args->total should be 4.

Changing the assignment of args->total to sc->mp->m_dir_geo->fsbcount makes the assertion go away, but that isn't a complete fix. In xrep_tempexch_estimate, we also incorrectly assume that a shortform conversion requires 1 fsblock when it should be m_dir_geo->fsbcount. Without that, we can under-reserve space in the transaction and cause a filesystem shutdown.

Note that the xfs_dabuf_nfsb helper will compute the correct value for directories and xattr, so we use that instead of open-coding the logic. Also fix xrep_xattr_swap_prep to assign args->total via xfs_dabuf_nfsb to avoid one logic bomb if we ever support multi-fsblock attrs.

Tripped-by: 0fe77e57588b98 ("xfs: assert the reservation covers each da fork growth")

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

Published

September 25, 2026

Last Modified

October 3, 2026

References (4)

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-97549(1)

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

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (183 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (180 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.7-1: fixed in 7.2.7-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 14× in last 7d / 23× in last 30d)

Each row is a source pipeline that fetched or updated this CVE on that date, with what changed. 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. Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-04 23:23 UTCEPSS rescore
  2. 2026-10-03 14:26 UTCEPSS rescore
  3. 2026-10-03 11:29 UTCGHSA enrichment
  4. 2026-10-03 11:26 UTCNVD update
  5. 2026-10-03 11:10 UTCMITRE cvelistV5
  6. 2026-10-02 17:57 UTCEPSS rescore
  7. 2026-10-02 03:10 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-02 03:10 UTCGHSA enrichment
  9. 2026-10-01 19:51 UTCEPSS rescore
  10. 2026-09-30 15:04 UTCEPSS rescore
  11. 2026-09-28 21:18 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-09-28 21:18 UTCGHSA enrichment
  13. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  14. 2026-09-28 13:52 UTCEPSS rescore
  15. 2026-09-27 13:49 UTCEPSS rescore
  16. 2026-09-26 15:59 UTCEPSS rescore
  17. 2026-09-25 15:26 UTCGHSA enrichment
  18. 2026-09-25 15:23 UTCNVD update
  19. 2026-09-25 14:53 UTCGHSA enrichment
  20. 2026-09-25 14:49 UTCMITRE cvelistV5
  21. 2026-09-25 11:29 UTCNVD update
  22. 2026-09-25 10:40 UTCEG score recompute
  23. 2026-09-25 10:27 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-97549?
CVE-2026-97549 is a publicly disclosed vulnerability published on September 25, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfs: fix under-reservation of blocks when repairing sf directories Whilst running QA on XFS for-next as of 7.3-rc2 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-n size=8192", I observed the following (trimmed) dmesg splat: XFS: Assertion failed: args->total…
When was CVE-2026-97549 disclosed?
CVE-2026-97549 was first published on September 25, 2026, with the most recent update on October 3, 2026. EchelonGraph re-ingests CVE updates from NVD on a 2-hour cycle, so this page reflects the latest published state.
Is CVE-2026-97549 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-97549 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-2026-97549?
No fix for CVE-2026-97549 is confirmed yet. Until one is published, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation — for example, keep it off the internet or limit it to trusted networks — and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-97549 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-2026-97549

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-97549?

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

Book a Demo →Browse All CVEs