In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: do proper folio cleanup when run_delalloc_nocow() failed
[BUG]
With CONFIG_DEBUG_VM set, test case generic/476 has some chance to crash
with the following VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO():
BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, start 1146880 end 1253375 len 106496 ret -28
BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, start 1146880 end 1253375 len 106496 ret -28
page: refcount:4 mapcount:0 mapping:00000000592787cc index:0x12 pfn:0x10664
aops:btrfs_aops [btrfs] ino:101 dentry name(?):"f1774"
flags: 0x2fffff80004028(uptodate|lru|private|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0xfffff)
page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio))
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2992!
Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP
CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3943513 Comm: kworker/u24:15 Tainted: G OE 6.12.0-rc7-custom+ #87
Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022
Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
pc : folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258
lr : folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258
Call trace:
folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258
btrfs_folio_clamp_clear_dirty+0x80/0xd0 [btrfs]
__process_folios_contig+0x154/0x268 [btrfs]
extent_clear_unlock_delalloc+0x5c/0x80 [btrfs]
run_delalloc_nocow+0x5f8/0x760 [btrfs]
btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0xa8/0x220 [btrfs]
writepage_delalloc+0x230/0x4c8 [btrfs]
extent_writepage+0xb8/0x358 [btrfs]
extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs]
btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x150 [btrfs]
do_writepages+0x74/0x190
filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x88/0xc8
start_delalloc_inodes+0x178/0x3a8 [btrfs]
btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x174/0x280 [btrfs]
shrink_delalloc+0x114/0x280 [btrfs]
flush_space+0x250/0x2f8 [btrfs]
btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs]
process_one_work+0x164/0x408
worker_thread+0x25c/0x388
kthread+0x100/0x118
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Code: 910a8021 a90363f7 a9046bf9 94012379 (d4210000)
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
[CAUSE]
The first two lines of extra debug messages show the problem is caused
by the error handling of run_delalloc_nocow().
E.g. we have the following dirtied range (4K blocksize 4K page size):
0 16K 32K
|//////////////////////////////////////|
| Pre-allocated |
And the range [0, 16K) has a preallocated extent.
- Enter run_delalloc_nocow() for range [0, 16K)
Which found range [0, 16K) is preallocated, can do the proper NOCOW
write.
- Enter fallback_to_fow() for range [16K, 32K)
Since the range [16K, 32K) is not backed by preallocated extent, we
have to go COW.
- cow_file_range() failed for range [16K, 32K)
So cow_file_range() will do the clean up by clearing folio dirty,
unlock the folios.
Now the folios in range [16K, 32K) is unlocked.
- Enter extent_clear_unlock_delalloc() from run_delalloc_nocow()
Which is called with PAGE_START_WRITEBACK to start page writeback.
But folios can only be marked writeback when it's properly locked,
thus this triggered the VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO().
Furthermore there is another hidden but common bug that
run_delalloc_nocow() is not clearing the folio dirty flags in its error
handling path.
This is the common bug shared between run_delalloc_nocow() and
cow_file_range().
[FIX]
- Clear folio dirty for range [@start, @cur_offset)
Introduce a helper, cleanup_dirty_folios(), which
will find and lock the folio in the range, clear the dirty flag and
start/end the writeback, with the extra handling for the
@locked_folio.
- Introduce a helper to clear folio dirty, start and end writeback
- Introduce a helper to record the last failed COW range end
This is to trace which range we should skip, to avoid double
unlocking.
- Skip the failed COW range for the e
---truncated---
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
- 0.3% 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