In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: fix double free of qgroup record after failure to add delayed ref head
In the previous code it was possible to incur into a double kfree()
scenario when calling add_delayed_ref_head(). This could happen if the
record was reported to already exist in the
btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_nolock() call, but then there was an error
later on add_delayed_ref_head(). In this case, since
add_delayed_ref_head() returned an error, the caller went to free the
record. Since add_delayed_ref_head() couldn't set this kfree'd pointer
to NULL, then kfree() would have acted on a non-NULL 'record' object
which was pointing to memory already freed by the callee.
The problem comes from the fact that the responsibility to kfree the
object is on both the caller and the callee at the same time. Hence, the
fix for this is to shift the ownership of the 'qrecord' object out of
the add_delayed_ref_head(). That is, we will never attempt to kfree()
the given object inside of this function, and will expect the caller to
act on the 'qrecord' object on its own. The only exception where the
'qrecord' object cannot be kfree'd is if it was inserted into the
tracing logic, for which we already have the 'qrecord_inserted_ret'
boolean to account for this. Hence, the caller has to kfree the object
only if add_delayed_ref_head() reports not to have inserted it on the
tracing logic.
As a side-effect of the above, we must guarantee that
'qrecord_inserted_ret' is properly initialized at the start of the
function, not at the end, and then set when an actual insert
happens. This way we avoid 'qrecord_inserted_ret' having an invalid
value on an early exit.
The documentation from the add_delayed_ref_head() has also been updated
to reflect on the exact ownership of the 'qrecord' object.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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