VulnerabilityPublished 11 Sep 2025Updated 31 Jul 2026

CVE-2025-39738: Linux kernel · btrfs: do not allow relocation of partially dropped subvolumes

Affects Linux kernelSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High · fixed in 5.15.0-1097.104~20.04.1 : patch Linux kernel soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.15.0-1097.104~20.04.1, 5.15.0-1102.111~20.04.1, 5.15.0-1097.106~20.04.1 +54

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., 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 may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: 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.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is 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).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Patches and advisories

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntu 25.10linux-azure-fde`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure-fde?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.17.0-1003.3 – 6.17.0-1017.17 10 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected <6.8.0-100.100	Fixed in 6.8.0-100.100
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-aws`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-aws?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected <6.8.0-1046.49	Fixed in 6.8.0-1046.49
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-aws-6.14`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-aws-6.14?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected 6.14.0-1007.7~24.04.1 – 6.14.0-1018.18~24.04.1 11 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-azure`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected <6.8.0-1046.52	Fixed in 6.8.0-1046.52
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSlinux-azure-6.11`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure-6.11?arch=source&distro=noble`Other threats	Affected 6.11.0-1008.8~24.04.1 – 6.11.0-1018.18~24.04.1 7 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not allow relocation of partially dropped subvolumes [BUG] There is an internal report that balance triggered transaction abort, with the following call trace: item 85 key (594509824 169 0) itemoff 12599 itemsize 33 extent refs 1 gen 197740 flags 2 ref#0: tree block backref root 7 item 86 key (594558976 169 0) itemoff 12566 itemsize 33 extent refs 1 gen 197522 flags 2 ref#0: tree block backref root 7 ... BTRFS error (device loop0): extent item not found for insert, bytenr 594526208 num_bytes 16384 parent 449921024 root_objectid 934 owner 1 offset 0 BTRFS error (device loop0): failed to run delayed ref for logical 594526208 num_bytes 16384 type 182 action 1 ref_mod 1: -117 ------------[ cut here ]------------ BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -117) WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6963 at ../fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:2168 btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xfa/0x110 [btrfs] And btrfs check doesn't report anything wrong related to the extent tree. [CAUSE] The cause is a little complex, firstly the extent tree indeed doesn't have the backref for 594526208. The extent tree only have the following two backrefs around that bytenr on-disk: item 65 key (594509824 METADATA_ITEM 0) itemoff 13880 itemsize 33 refs 1 gen 197740 flags TREE_BLOCK tree block skinny level 0 (176 0x7) tree block backref root CSUM_TREE item 66 key (594558976 METADATA_ITEM 0) itemoff 13847 itemsize 33 refs 1 gen 197522 flags TREE_BLOCK tree block skinny level 0 (176 0x7) tree block backref root CSUM_TREE But the such missing backref item is not an corruption on disk, as the offending delayed ref belongs to subvolume 934, and that subvolume is being dropped: item 0 key (934 ROOT_ITEM 198229) itemoff 15844 itemsize 439 generation 198229 root_dirid 256 bytenr 10741039104 byte_limit 0 bytes_used 345571328 last_snapshot 198229 flags 0x1000000000001(RDONLY) refs 0 drop_progress key (206324 EXTENT_DATA 2711650304) drop_level 2 level 2 generation_v2 198229 And that offending tree block 594526208 is inside the dropped range of that subvolume. That explains why there is no backref item for that bytenr and why btrfs check is not reporting anything wrong. But this also shows another problem, as btrfs will do all the orphan subvolume cleanup at a read-write mount. So half-dropped subvolume should not exist after an RW mount, and balance itself is also exclusive to subvolume cleanup, meaning we shouldn't hit a subvolume half-dropped during relocation. The root cause is, there is no orphan item for this subvolume. In fact there are 5 subvolumes from around 2021 that have the same problem. It looks like the original report has some older kernels running, and caused those zombie subvolumes. Thankfully upstream commit 8d488a8c7ba2 ("btrfs: fix subvolume/snapshot deletion not triggered on mount") has long fixed the bug. [ENHANCEMENT] For repairing such old fs, btrfs-progs will be enhanced. Considering how delayed the problem will show up (at run delayed ref time) and at that time we have to abort transaction already, it is too late. Instead here we reject any half-dropped subvolume for reloc tree at the earliest time, preventing confusion and extra time wasted on debugging similar bugs.

GCVE source: db.gcve.eu
OSV ID: UBUNTU-CVE-2025-39738
Osv Schema Version: 1.7.0
Ecosystems: Ubuntu:16.04:LTS, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Pro:20.04:LTS, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Nvidia-BlueField:22.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-preview:22.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:22.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Pro:Realtime:22.04:LTS, Ubuntu:24.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Nvidia-BlueField:24.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Pro:FIPS-updates:24.04:LTS, Ubuntu:Pro:Realtime:24.04:LTS, Ubuntu:25.10
CVSS version: 3.1

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…