CVE-2023-53618

btrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack dump

MEDIUM
5.5
CVSS Score
Published: October 7, 2025 at 03:19 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 06:45 AM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack dump [BUG] Syzbot reported a crash that an ASSERT() got triggered inside prepare_to_merge(). That ASSERT() makes sure the reloc tree is properly pointed back by its subvolume tree. [CAUSE] After more debugging output, it turns out we had an invalid reloc tree: BTRFS error (device loop1): reloc tree mismatch, root 8 has no reloc root, expect reloc root key (-8, 132, 8) gen 17 Note the above root key is (TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID, ROOT_ITEM, QUOTA_TREE_OBJECTID), meaning it's a reloc tree for quota tree. But reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes, as for non-subvolume trees, we just COW the involved tree block, no need to create a reloc tree since those tree blocks won't be shared with other trees. Only subvolumes tree can share tree blocks with other trees (thus they have BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE flag). Thus this new debug output proves my previous assumption that corrupted on-disk data can trigger that ASSERT(). [FIX] Besides the dedicated fix and the graceful exit, also let tree-checker to check such root keys, to make sure reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v ≥ 5.2.19v ≥ 5.3.45.16 ≤ v < 6.1.465.2.19 ≤ v < 5.35.3.4 ≤ v < 5.15.1275.3.4 ≤ v < 5.45.4 ≤ v < 5.15.1275.4 ≤ v < 6.1.465.4 ≤ v < 6.4.115.4 ≤ v < 6.56.2 ≤ v < 6.4.11259ee7754b6793af8bdd77f9ca818bc41cfe95413d95c52d789ca99e344061d7f6dadb2519adbcf55.2.195.3.45.46.5 rc16.5 rc26.5 rc36.5 rc46.5 rc5fba904d68c8bbfcc89c2210cfcb2351be90bc3e5
Vendor states this is fixed in 314135b7bae9618a317874ae195272682cf2d5d4 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 3ae93b316ca4b8b3c33798ef1d210355f2fb9318 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6ebcd021c92b8e4b904552e4d87283032100796d (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 84256e00eeca73c529fc6196e478cc89b8098157 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15.127 (unaffected)
Affected range stops below 5.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.4 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.1.46 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.4.11 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.5 (unaffected)

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
NVD-CWE-noinfo

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card