CVE-2025-71183
Unknown Unknown - Not Provided
BaseFortify

Publication date: 2026-01-31

Last updated on: 2026-03-25

Assigner: kernel.org

Description
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 Scores
EPSS Scores
Probability:
Percentile:
Meta Information
Published
2026-01-31
Last Modified
2026-03-25
Generated
2026-05-07
AI Q&A
2026-01-31
EPSS Evaluated
2026-05-05
NVD
CVE-2025-71183
Affected Vendors & Products
Showing 17 associated CPEs
Vendor Product Version / Range
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel From 6.13 (inc) to 6.18.6 (exc)
linux linux_kernel From 6.2 (inc) to 6.6.121 (exc)
linux linux_kernel From 6.7 (inc) to 6.12.66 (exc)
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel 6.19
linux linux_kernel From 3.18.32 (inc) to 3.19 (exc)
linux linux_kernel From 4.1.23 (inc) to 4.2 (exc)
linux linux_kernel From 4.4.8 (inc) to 4.5 (exc)
linux linux_kernel From 4.5.2 (inc) to 4.6 (exc)
linux linux_kernel From 4.6.1 (inc) to 6.1.161 (exc)
linux linux_kernel 4.6
Helpful Resources
Exploitability
CWE
CWE Icon
KEV
KEV Icon
CWE ID Description
CWE-UNKNOWN
Attack-Flow Graph
AI Powered Q&A
Can you explain this vulnerability to me?

This vulnerability occurs in the Linux kernel's btrfs filesystem during rename operations involving directories and inodes. Specifically, after exchanging two directories (rename exchange) or performing multiple renames in non-atomic steps, the filesystem's log tree may incorrectly record inode references. After a power failure, this can cause the system to attempt to delete an inode that should not be deleted because it was not deleted before the failure. If the inode is a directory containing a subvolume, the deletion attempt fails because the log replay code is not designed to handle directory entries pointing to root items. This leads to mount failures and kernel errors.


How can this vulnerability impact me? :

This vulnerability can cause the Linux system using btrfs to fail mounting the filesystem after a power failure due to improper handling of inode deletions during log replay. This can lead to system instability, data inaccessibility, and potential data loss or corruption, especially if directories containing subvolumes are involved in rename operations. The failure manifests as kernel errors and aborted transactions, impacting system availability and reliability.


Ask Our AI Assistant
Need more information? Ask your question to get an AI reply (Powered by our expertise)
0/70
EPSS Chart