CVE-2026-43299 : Detail

CVE-2026-43299

5.5
/
Medium
0.02%V4
Local
2026-05-08
14h16 +00:00
2026-05-15
14h13 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not ASSERT() when the fs flips RO inside btrfs_repair_io_failure() [BUG] There is a bug report that when btrfs hits ENOSPC error in a critical path, btrfs flips RO (this part is expected, although the ENOSPC bug still needs to be addressed). The problem is after the RO flip, if there is a read repair pending, we can hit the ASSERT() inside btrfs_repair_io_failure() like the following: BTRFS info (device vdc): relocating block group 30408704 flags metadata|raid1 ------------[ cut here ]------------ BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -28) WARNING: fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3235 at __btrfs_free_extent.isra.0+0x453/0xfd0, CPU#1: btrfs/383844 Modules linked in: kvm_intel kvm irqbypass [...] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS info (device vdc state EA): 2 enospc errors during balance BTRFS info (device vdc state EA): balance: ended with status: -30 BTRFS error (device vdc state EA): parent transid verify failed on logical 30556160 mirror 2 wanted 8 found 6 BTRFS error (device vdc state EA): bdev /dev/nvme0n1 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 10, gen 0 [...] assertion failed: !(fs_info->sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY) :: 0, in fs/btrfs/bio.c:938 ------------[ cut here ]------------ assertion failed: !(fs_info->sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY) :: 0, in fs/btrfs/bio.c:938 kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/bio.c:938! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 868 Comm: kworker/u8:13 Tainted: G W N 6.19.0-rc6+ #4788 PREEMPT(full) Tainted: [W]=WARN, [N]=TEST Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.17.0-0-gb52ca86e094d-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Workqueue: btrfs-endio simple_end_io_work RIP: 0010:btrfs_repair_io_failure.cold+0xb2/0x120 RSP: 0000:ffffc90001d2bcf0 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000051 RBX: 0000000000001000 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff8305cf42 RDI: 00000000ffffffff RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 00000000fffeffff R09: ffffffff837fa988 R10: ffffffff8327a9e0 R11: 6f69747265737361 R12: ffff88813018d310 R13: ffff888168b8a000 R14: ffffc90001d2bd90 R15: ffff88810a169000 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8885e752c000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 ------------[ cut here ]------------ [CAUSE] The cause of -ENOSPC error during the test case btrfs/124 is still unknown, although it's known that we still have cases where metadata can be over-committed but can not be fulfilled correctly, thus if we hit such ENOSPC error inside a critical path, we have no choice but abort the current transaction. This will mark the fs read-only. The problem is inside the btrfs_repair_io_failure() path that we require the fs not to be mount read-only. This is normally fine, but if we are doing a read-repair meanwhile the fs flips RO due to a critical error, we can enter btrfs_repair_io_failure() with super block set to read-only, thus triggering the above crash. [FIX] Just replace the ASSERT() with a proper return if the fs is already read-only.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 3.13 To (excluding) 6.19.6

References