CVE-2025-71183

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2026-01-31. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3

Also known asEUVD-2025-206592 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-jrg6-qwp6-f549 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.3%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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

btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs

After rename exchanging (either with the rename exchange operation or regular renames in multiple non-atomic steps) two inodes and at least one of them is a directory, we can end up with a log tree that contains only of the inodes and after a power failure that can result in an attempt to delete the other inode when it should not because it was not deleted before the power failure. In some case that delete attempt fails when the target inode is a directory that contains a subvolume inside it, since the log replay code is not prepared to deal with directory entries that point to root items (only inode items).

1) We have directories "dir1" (inode A) and "dir2" (inode B) under the same parent directory;

2) We have a file (inode C) under directory "dir1" (inode A);

3) We have a subvolume inside directory "dir2" (inode B);

4) All these inodes were persisted in a past transaction and we are currently at transaction N;

5) We rename the file (inode C), so at btrfs_log_new_name() we update inode C's last_unlink_trans to N;

6) We get a rename exchange for "dir1" (inode A) and "dir2" (inode B), so after the exchange "dir1" is inode B and "dir2" is inode A. During the rename exchange we call btrfs_log_new_name() for inodes A and B, but because they are directories, we don't update their last_unlink_trans to N;

7) An fsync against the file (inode C) is done, and because its inode has a last_unlink_trans with a value of N we log its parent directory (inode A) (through btrfs_log_all_parents(), called from btrfs_log_inode_parent()).

8) So we end up with inode B not logged, which now has the old name of inode A. At copy_inode_items_to_log(), when logging inode A, we did not check if we had any conflicting inode to log because inode A has a generation lower than the current transaction (created in a past transaction);

9) After a power failure, when replaying the log tree, since we find that inode A has a new name that conflicts with the name of inode B in the fs tree, we attempt to delete inode B... this is wrong since that directory was never deleted before the power failure, and because there is a subvolume inside that directory, attempting to delete it will fail since replay_dir_deletes() and btrfs_unlink_inode() are not prepared to deal with dir items that point to roots instead of inodes.

When that happens the mount fails and we get a stack trace like the following:

[87.2314] BTRFS info (device dm-0): start tree-log replay [87.2318] BTRFS critical (device dm-0): failed to delete reference to subvol, root 5 inode 256 parent 259 [87.2332] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [87.2338] BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -2) [87.2346] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 638968 at fs/btrfs/inode.c:4345 __btrfs_unlink_inode+0x416/0x440 [btrfs] [87.2368] Modules linked in: btrfs loop dm_thin_pool (...) [87.2470] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 638968 Comm: mount Tainted: G W 6.18.0-rc7-btrfs-next-218+ #2 PREEMPT(full) [87.2489] Tainted: [W]=WARN [87.2494] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-0-gea1b7a073390-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [87.2514] RIP: 0010:__btrfs_unlink_inode+0x416/0x440 [btrfs] [87.2538] Code: c0 89 04 24 (...) [87.2568] RSP: 0018:ffffc0e741f4b9b8 EFLAGS: 00010286 [87.2574] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9d3ec8a6cf60 RCX: 0000000000000000 [87.2582] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: ffffffff84ab45a1 RDI: 00000000ffffffff [87.2591] RBP: ffff9d3ec8a6ef20 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffc0e741f4b840 [87.2599] R10: ffff9d45dc1fffa8 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: ffff9d3ee26d77e0 [87.2608] R13: ffffc0e741f4ba98 R14: ffff9d4458040800 R15: ffff9d44b6b7ca10 [87.2618] FS: 00007f7b9603a840(0000) GS:ffff9d4658982000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [87. ---truncated---

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
40
EG Risk 40/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity55% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.3% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability100% × 15%
CISA's SSVC Automatable value: yes (Vulnrichment).
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
EPSS PROB
0.3%
EPSS %ILE
24th
KEV
Not listed

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. 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.

Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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; 60 days if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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

Published

January 31, 2026

Last Modified

October 19, 2026

Advisory Details (5)

Auto-updated Aug 2, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d52af58dd463821c5c516aebb031a58934f696ea
Web page

btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c7f0207db68d5a1b4af23acbef1a8e8ddc431ebb
Web page

btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a63998cd6687c14b160dccb0bbcf281b2eb0dab3
Web page

btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7ba0b6461bc4edb3005ea6e00cdae189bcf908a5
Web page

btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0c2413c69129f6ce60157f7b53d9ba880260400b

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2025-71183(2)

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

Patch Availability(16)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(5 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:11(2)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux5.10.103-1 ... 7.2~rc5-1~exp1 (496 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
linux-6.16.1.106-3~deb11u1 ... 6.1.159-1~deb11u1 (14 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.162-1~deb11u1: fixed in 6.1.162-1~deb11u1
—
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 6.1.99-1 (46 versions)
  • every version up to 6.1.162-1: fixed in 6.1.162-1
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.38-1 ... 6.12.69-1~bpo12+1 (10 versions)
  • every version up to 6.12.69-1: fixed in 6.12.69-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 6.18~rc7-1~exp1 (96 versions)
  • every version up to 6.18.8-1: fixed in 6.18.8-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(15)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 8× in last 7d / 46× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. 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. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 99 of 220 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 1 repeat row among the latest 100 is merged into the row it repeats. The 121 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 16:43 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  5. 2026-10-29 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  6. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  7. 2026-10-28 12:25 UTCOSV refresh
  8. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  9. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  10. 2026-10-25 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 24th percentile
  11. 2026-10-25 16:01 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-24 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 23rd percentile
  13. 2026-10-23 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 23rd percentile
  14. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 23rd percentile
  15. 2026-10-21 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 23rd percentile
  16. 2026-10-20 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.3% · 23rd percentile
  17. 2026-10-19 20:22 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-19 20:22 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jrg6-qwp6-f549 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  19. 2026-10-19 18:33 UTCEG score recompute
  20. 2026-10-19 18:33 UTCVendor advisory
  21. 2026-10-19 18:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jrg6-qwp6-f549 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  22. 2026-10-19 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  23. 2026-10-18 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  24. 2026-10-18 05:15 UTCEG score recompute
  25. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
Show 74 more
  1. 2026-10-16 16:39 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  2. 2026-10-16 15:24 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-16 15:24 UTCVendor advisory
  4. 2026-10-16 15:24 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jrg6-qwp6-f549 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  5. 2026-10-15 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  6. 2026-10-14 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  7. 2026-10-13 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  8. 2026-10-12 16:45 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  10. 2026-10-11 20:20 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 18:32 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 15:07 UTCEG score recompute
  13. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  14. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  15. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  16. 2026-10-08 18:05 UTCOSV refresh
  17. 2026-10-08 17:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  18. 2026-10-07 23:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  19. 2026-10-06 15:17 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 33rd percentile
  20. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  21. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  22. 2026-10-03 14:25 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  23. 2026-10-01 19:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  24. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  25. 2026-09-29 15:20 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  26. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  27. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  28. 2026-09-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  29. 2026-09-23 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  30. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 32nd percentile
  31. 2026-09-19 00:00 UTCOSV refresh
  32. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  33. 2026-09-17 19:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  34. 2026-09-16 14:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  35. 2026-09-16 05:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 31st percentile
  36. 2026-09-15 03:10 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  37. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  38. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  39. 2026-09-11 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  40. 2026-09-11 09:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  41. 2026-09-10 09:34 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  42. 2026-09-08 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  43. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  44. 2026-09-06 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  45. 2026-09-04 05:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  46. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  47. 2026-09-01 13:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 30th percentile
  48. 2026-08-31 04:02 UTCOSV refresh
  49. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  50. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  51. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  52. 2026-08-26 14:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  53. 2026-08-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  54. 2026-08-24 14:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  55. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  56. 2026-08-21 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  57. 2026-08-20 22:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  58. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  59. 2026-08-18 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  60. 2026-08-17 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  61. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  62. 2026-08-16 02:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  63. 2026-08-15 01:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  64. 2026-08-14 11:47 UTCEG score recompute
  65. 2026-08-14 11:47 UTCVendor advisory
  66. 2026-08-14 11:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jrg6-qwp6-f549 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  67. 2026-08-13 22:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  68. 2026-08-13 03:56 UTCEG score recompute
  69. 2026-08-13 03:56 UTCVendor advisory
  70. 2026-08-13 03:56 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jrg6-qwp6-f549 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  71. 2026-08-12 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 29th percentile
  72. 2026-08-11 13:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  73. 2026-08-10 23:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 28th percentile
  74. 2026-08-09 16:18 UTCEG score recompute

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2025-71183?
CVE-2025-71183 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on January 31, 2026. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: always detect conflicting inodes when logging inode refs After rename exchanging (either with the rename exchange operation or regular renames in multiple non-atomic steps) two inodes and at least one of them is a directory,…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2025-71183 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2025-71183 was published on January 31, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 19, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2025-71183 actively exploited?
CVE-2025-71183 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.3% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (24th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-71183?
CVE-2025-71183 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2025-71183?
A fix for CVE-2025-71183 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2025-71183 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-2025-71183

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2025-71183?

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