Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.23% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2024
CVE-2024-26727High confidence
btrfs: do not ASSERT() if the newly created subvolume already got read
Linux · Linux
5.5MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Low, lowered one band.downgradedsince 23 May 2026
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Linux Linux and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
4 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.7.7-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.1.82-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.7.7-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | linux | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.7.7-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not ASSERT() if the newly created subvolume already got read [BUG] There is a syzbot crash, triggered by the ASSERT() during subvolume creation: assertion failed: !anon_dev, in fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_root_ref.part.0+0x9aa/0xa60 <TASK> btrfs_get_new_fs_root+0xd3/0xf0 create_subvol+0xd02/0x1650 btrfs_mksubvol+0xe95/0x12b0 __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x2f9/0x4f0 btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x16b/0x200 btrfs_ioctl+0x35f0/0x5cf0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x19d/0x210 do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] During create_subvol(), after inserting root item for the newly created subvolume, we would trigger btrfs_get_new_fs_root() to get the btrfs_root of that subvolume. The idea here is, we have preallocated an anonymous device number for the subvolume, thus we can assign it to the new subvolume. But there is really nothing preventing things like backref walk to read the new subvolume. If that happens before we call btrfs_get_new_fs_root(), the subvolume would be read out, with a new anonymous device number assigned already. In that case, we would trigger ASSERT(), as we really expect no one to read out that subvolume (which is not yet accessible from the fs). But things like backref walk is still possible to trigger the read on the subvolume. Thus our assumption on the ASSERT() is not correct in the first place. [FIX] Fix it by removing the ASSERT(), and just free the @anon_dev, reset it to 0, and continue. If the subvolume tree is read out by something else, it should have already get a new anon_dev assigned thus we only need to free the preallocated one.
What
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not ASSERT() if the newly created subvolume already got read [BUG] There is a syzbot crash, triggered by the ASSERT() during subvolume creation: assertion failed: !anon_dev, in fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_root_ref.part.0+0x9aa/0xa60 <TASK> btrfs_get_new_fs_root+0xd3/0xf0 create_subvol+0xd02/0x1650 btrfs_mksubvol+0xe95/0x12b0 __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x2f9/0x4f0 btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x16b/0x200 btrfs_ioctl+0x35f0/0x5cf0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x19d/0x210 do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] During create_subvol(), after inserting root item for the newly created subvolume, we would trigger btrfs_get_new_fs_root() to get the btrfs_root of that subvolume. The idea here is, we have preallocated an anonymous device number for the subvolume, thus we can assign it to the new subvolume. But there is really nothing preventing things like backref walk to read the new subvolume. If that happens before we call btrfs_get_new_fs_root(), the subvolume would be read out, with a new anonymous device number assigned already. In that case, we would trigger ASSERT(), as we really expect no one to read out that subvolume (which is not yet accessible from the fs). But things like backref walk is still possible to trigger the read on the subvolume. Thus our assumption on the ASSERT() is not correct in the first place. [FIX] Fix it by removing the ASSERT(), and just free the @anon_dev, reset it to 0, and continue. If the subvolume tree is read out by something else, it should have already get a new anon_dev assigned thus we only need to free the preallocated one.
Why
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
What
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not ASSERT() if the newly created subvolume already got read [BUG] There is a syzbot crash, triggered by the ASSERT() during subvolume creation: assertion failed: !anon_dev, in fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_root_ref.part.0+0x9aa/0xa60 <TASK> btrfs_get_new_fs_root+0xd3/0xf0 create_subvol+0xd02/0x1650 btrfs_mksubvol+0xe95/0x12b0 __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x2f9/0x4f0 btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x16b/0x200 btrfs_ioctl+0x35f0/0x5cf0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x19d/0x210 do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] During create_subvol(), after inserting root item for the newly created subvolume, we would trigger btrfs_get_new_fs_root() to get the btrfs_root of that subvolume. The idea here is, we have preallocated an anonymous device number for the subvolume, thus we can assign it to the new subvolume. But there is really nothing preventing things like backref walk to read the new subvolume. If that happens before we call btrfs_get_new_fs_root(), the subvolume would be read out, with a new anonymous device number assigned already. In that case, we would trigger ASSERT(), as we really expect no one to read out that subvolume (which is not yet accessible from the fs). But things like backref walk is still possible to trigger the read on the subvolume. Thus our assumption on the ASSERT() is not correct in the first place. [FIX] Fix it by removing the ASSERT(), and just free the @anon_dev, reset it to 0, and continue. If the subvolume tree is read out by something else, it should have already get a new anon_dev assigned thus we only need to free the preallocated one.
Why
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Reachable Assertion → disrupt the affected service
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-617 ↗
CWE-617: Reachable Assertion. The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 3 Apr 2024 · Last source change 23 May 2026, 15:37 UTC · CWE-617 · Reachable Assertion
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2024-23989
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.