In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: fix transaction atomicity bug when enabling simple quotas
Set squota incompat bit before committing the transaction that enables
the feature.
With the config CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT enabled, an assertion
failure occurs regarding the simple quota feature.
[5.596534] assertion failed: btrfs_fs_incompat(fs_info, SIMPLE_QUOTA), in fs/btrfs/qgroup.c:365
[5.597098] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[5.597371] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/qgroup.c:365!
[5.597946] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 268 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.13.0-rc2-00031-gf92f4749861b #146
[5.598450] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014
[5.599008] RIP: 0010:btrfs_read_qgroup_config+0x74d/0x7a0
[5.604303]
[5.605230] ? btrfs_read_qgroup_config+0x74d/0x7a0
[5.605538] ? exc_invalid_op+0x56/0x70
[5.605775] ? btrfs_read_qgroup_config+0x74d/0x7a0
[5.606066] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1f/0x30
[5.606441] ? btrfs_read_qgroup_config+0x74d/0x7a0
[5.606741] ? btrfs_read_qgroup_config+0x74d/0x7a0
[5.607038] ? try_to_wake_up+0x317/0x760
[5.607286] open_ctree+0xd9c/0x1710
[5.607509] btrfs_get_tree+0x58a/0x7e0
[5.608002] vfs_get_tree+0x2e/0x100
[5.608224] fc_mount+0x16/0x60
[5.608420] btrfs_get_tree+0x2f8/0x7e0
[5.608897] vfs_get_tree+0x2e/0x100
[5.609121] path_mount+0x4c8/0xbc0
[5.609538] __x64_sys_mount+0x10d/0x150
The issue can be easily reproduced using the following reproducer:
root@q:linux# cat repro.sh
set -e
mkfs.btrfs -q -f /dev/sdb
mount /dev/sdb /mnt/btrfs
btrfs quota enable -s /mnt/btrfs
umount /mnt/btrfs
mount /dev/sdb /mnt/btrfs
The issue is that when enabling quotas, at btrfs_quota_enable(), we set
BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_SIMPLE_MODE at fs_info->qgroup_flags and persist
it in the quota root in the item with the key BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_KEY, but
we only set the incompat bit BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SIMPLE_QUOTA after we
commit the transaction used to enable simple quotas.
This means that if after that transaction commit we unmount the filesystem
without starting and committing any other transaction, or we have a power
failure, the next time we mount the filesystem we will find the flag
BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_SIMPLE_MODE set in the item with the key
BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_KEY but we will not find the incompat bit
BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SIMPLE_QUOTA set in the superblock, triggering an
assertion failure at:
btrfs_read_qgroup_config() -> qgroup_read_enable_gen()
To fix this issue, set the BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SIMPLE_QUOTA flag
immediately after setting the BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_SIMPLE_MODE.
This ensures that both flags are flushed to disk within the same
transaction.
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