Patchlage

CVE-2026-90264

CVE CVE-2026-90264EUVD EUVD-2026-81857Published 2026-09-17T16:08:00.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: always wait for ordered extents to avoid OE races [BUG] Syzbot reported a bug that there can be conflicting OEs for the same range: BTRFS critical (device loop4): panic in insert_ordered_extent:264: overlapping ordered extents, existing oe file_offset 16384 num_bytes 430080 flags 0x1089, new oe file_offset 16384 num_bytes 430080 flags 0x80 (errno=-17 Object alrea[ 179.162726][ T6897] BTRFS critical (device loop4): panic in insert_ordered_extent:264: overlapping ordered extents, existing oe file_offset 16384 num_bytes 430080 flags 0x1089, new oe file_offset 16384 num_bytes 430080 flags 0x80 (errno=-17 Object already exists) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c:264! Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 05/09/2026 RIP: 0010:btrfs_alloc_ordered_extent+0x943/0xad0 Call Trace: <TASK> cow_file_range+0x744/0x12a0 fallback_to_cow+0x5ea/0xa00 run_delalloc_nocow+0x110c/0x17a0 btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0xbe4/0x1c20 writepage_delalloc+0x104d/0x1ba0 btrfs_writepages+0x1667/0x28b0 do_writepages+0x338/0x560 filemap_fdatawrite_range+0x1f2/0x300 btrfs_fdatawrite_range+0x54/0xf0 btrfs_direct_write+0x6a0/0xc30 btrfs_do_write_iter+0x329/0x790 do_iter_readv_writev+0x624/0x8d0 vfs_writev+0x34c/0x990 __se_sys_pwritev2+0x17a/0x2a0 do_syscall_64+0x174/0x580 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] Since commit ff66fe666233 ("btrfs: fix incorrect buffered IO fallback for append direct writes"), if the direct IO finished short, we will revert the isize back to the original one, so that append writes can be respected during the buffered fallback. Normally we rely on lock_and_cleanup_extent_if_need() function during buffered writeback to wait for any existing ordered extents. But that ordered extent waiting only happens if the start_pos is inside the isize. Since we have reverted the isize during failed direct IO, we will not wait for any ordered extents. This means we can have a race where the direct IO OE is still in the tree, finished but not yet removed, then we're inserting the OE for the buffered write, causing the above crash. [FIX] Make the OE wait to be unconditional, to handle the reverted isize situation. And since lock_and_cleanup_extent_if_need() now either lock the extents or return -EAGAIN, also remove the branches that handles no-extent-locked cases, and rename it to remove the "_if_need" suffix. The following micro benchmark shows the runtime difference for btrfs_buffered_write(), doing `xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 1m"` workload, all values are the average runtime in nano seconds. function runtime | before | after -----------------------------------+-------------+--------------- lock_and_cleanup_extent_if_need() | 58.2 | 183.0 btrfs_buffered_write() | 2115.6 | 2973.3 The overall runtime of btrfs_buffered_write() is still pretty tiny (still less than 3 micro seconds), I'd say the extra cost is still acceptable. An alternative to fix this problem is to wait ordered extents during iomap_end() where the isize revert is done. But that solution will break nowait requirement, as if a nowait direct IO finished short, we have to wait for the OEs unconditionally or the next append buffered IO can still hit the same problem. So here we have to move the wait cost to buffered write, but at least the code is slightly more streamline.

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

Does this concern one of your customers?

This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.

Try it for 28 days

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.