Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-68167 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-68167
btrfs: do not try compression for data reloc inodes
Published 2026-08-10 (2 months ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem fs/btrfs. Debian urgency: unimportant.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-68167 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | not affected | 6.1.190-1 | Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 13trixie | not affected | 6.12.113-1 | Nothing to do. trixie never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 7.1.6-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.1.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 7.1.6-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.1.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
[BUG] There is a syzbot report that the check inside get_new_location() triggered: BTRFS info (device loop0): found 31 extents, stage: move data extents BTRFS info (device loop0): leaf 8908800 gen 16 total ptrs 28 free space 1676 owner 18446744073709551607 item 0 key (256 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 3835 itemsize 160 inode generation 5 transid 0 size 0 nbytes 0 block group 0 mode 40755 links 1 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0 sequence 0 flags 0x0 atime 1669132761.0 ctime 1669132761.0 mtime 1669132761.0 otime 0.0 item 1 key (256 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 3823 itemsize 12 index 0 name_len 2 item 2 key (258 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff 3663 itemsize 160 inode generation 1 transid 16 size 733184 nbytes 106496 block group 0 mode 100600 links 0 uid 0 gid 0 rdev 0 sequence 24 flags 0x18 item 3 key (258 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 3595 itemsize 68 generation 16 type 0 inline extent data size 47 ram_bytes 4096 compression 1 [...] item 27 key (18446744073709551611 ORPHAN_ITEM 258) itemoff 2376 itemsize 0 BTRFS error (device loop0): unexpected non-zero offset in file extent item for data reloc inode 258 key offset 0 offset 9277520992061368337 ------------[ cut here ]------------ btrfs_abort_should_print_stack(__error) [CAUSE] The above dump tree shows the first file extent item is inlined, which should make no sense for data reloc inodes, as such inodes just represent where the data extents are in the relocation destination chunk. However the relocation path preallocates space for each block, then dirties them, cluster by cluster. It's possible to have a single block at the beginning of the block group, and no other block in the same cluster. So relocation will preallocate a file extent for that block and dirty the first block. Then memory pressure forces the data reloc inode to be written back, before any other blocks are dirtied/allocated. Finally commit 3eaf5f082c4c ("btrfs: extract inlined creation into a dedicated delalloc helper") changed the sequence of delalloc. Before that commit we always tried NOCOW first, so that dirtied block would be written back into the preallocated space, and appear as a regular extent. But with that commit, we always try inline first, and since compression is forced, we try compressing the first block, and then inline the compressed data, resulting in the above inlined file extent in the data reloc tree. Then the check in get_new_location() will check the file offset, without checking if the file extent is inlined or not, resulting in the above failure. [FIX] Do not allow compression for data reloc inodes. Since data reloc inode sizes are always block aligned, as long as we do not compress, @data_len will always be at least one block, and that will cause can_cow_file_range_inline() to return false, thus no inlined extent will be created.
Where it lives
The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.
fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
- What this is
- BTRFS FILE SYSTEMMAINTAINERS section matched on fs/btrfs/ · linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org · Maintained
Show whether Debian builds this, per release
Not established. This site could not find the build rule for the affected file in the kernel trees Debian ships, so it has no answer about whether Debian compiles this code. Read that as unknown, never as absent.
- bookworm, trixie, forky, sid?
- ?
- not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file
Where a release above reads "not established", no build rule for the affected file was found in that release's kernel tree. That is a gap in this lookup, not a finding that the code is absent.
From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS
Signals
- Published
- 2026-08-10 (2 months ago)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- 0.20%, higher than 8.9% of all CVEssource
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- unimportantsource
- Subsystem
- fs/btrfs
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | 7.1.6 | 31a62e4ad663 |
| 7.1 | 7.2 | ae4316f332e0 |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-68167, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.