In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: check folio mapping after unlock in relocate_one_folio()
When we call btrfs_read_folio() to bring a folio uptodate, we unlock the
folio. The result of that is that a different thread can modify the
mapping (like remove it with invalidate) before we call folio_lock().
This results in an invalid page and we need to try again.
In particular, if we are relocating concurrently with aborting a
transaction, this can result in a crash like the following:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
PGD 0 P4D 0
Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
CPU: 76 PID: 1411631 Comm: kworker/u322:5
Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work
RIP: 0010:set_page_extent_mapped+0x20/0xb0
RSP: 0018:ffffc900516a7be8 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: ffffea009e851d08 RBX: ffffea009e0b1880 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffc900516a7b90 RDI: ffffea009e0b1880
RBP: 0000000003573000 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: ffff88c07fd2f3f0
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000194754b575be R12: 0000000003572000
R13: 0000000003572fff R14: 0000000000100cca R15: 0000000005582fff
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88c07fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 000000407d00f002 CR4: 00000000007706f0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
? __die+0x78/0xc0
? page_fault_oops+0x2a8/0x3a0
? __switch_to+0x133/0x530
? wq_worker_running+0xa/0x40
? exc_page_fault+0x63/0x130
? asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30
? set_page_extent_mapped+0x20/0xb0
relocate_file_extent_cluster+0x1a7/0x940
relocate_data_extent+0xaf/0x120
relocate_block_group+0x20f/0x480
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x152/0x320
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x3d/0x120
btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work+0x2ae/0x4e0
process_scheduled_works+0x184/0x370
worker_thread+0xc6/0x3e0
? blk_add_timer+0xb0/0xb0
kthread+0xae/0xe0
? flush_tlb_kernel_range+0x90/0x90
ret_from_fork+0x2f/0x40
? flush_tlb_kernel_range+0x90/0x90
ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
This occurs because cleanup_one_transaction() calls
destroy_delalloc_inodes() which calls invalidate_inode_pages2() which
takes the folio_lock before setting mapping to NULL. We fail to check
this, and subsequently call set_extent_mapping(), which assumes that
mapping != NULL (in fact it asserts that in debug mode)
Note that the "fixes" patch here is not the one that introduced the
race (the very first iteration of this code from 2009) but a more recent
change that made this particular crash happen in practice.
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 2026-10-25). 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