# CVE-2026-72203: ntfs: skip extent mft records in writeback to prevent deadlock

> A deadlock in the Linux kernel NTFS driver can cause a system hang during file writeback operations, requiring a kernel patch to resolve.

- **Severity:** High 7.5 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Not needed
- **Attackable:** Over the internet
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 15 Aug 2026
- **Updated:** 21 Oct 2026
- **Also known as:** AZL-96168, BELL-CVE-2026-72203, DEBIAN-CVE-2026-72203, GHSA-p3pr-3qq8-w67c, UBUNTU-CVE-2026-72203

## What is CVE-2026-72203?

CVE-2026-72203 is a high-severity denial of service vulnerability in Linux, published on 15 Aug 2026. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ntfs: skip extent mft records in writeback to prevent deadlock

This patch fixes the ABBA deadlock between extent_lock and extent
mrec_lock triggered by xfstests generic/113, that occurs since the commit
6994acf33bae ("ntfs: use base mft_no when looking up base inode for
		extent record").

Path A (inode writeback):
  VFS writeback
    -> ntfs_write_inode()
      -> __ntfs_write_inode()
        -> mutex_lock(&ni->extent_lock)
        -> mutex_lock(&tni->mrec_lock)

Path B (MFT folio writeback):
  VFS writeback of $MFT dirty folios
    -> ntfs_mft_writepages()
      -> ntfs_write_mft_block()
        -> ntfs_may_write_mft_record()
          -> holds one extent mrec_lock from a previous iteration
          -> tries to acquire another base inode extent_lock

By removing all extent_lock and extent mrec_lock acquisition from the MFT
folio writeback path, the ABBA lock ordering is eliminated:

Path A: __ntfs_write_inode(): extent_lock -> mrec_lock
Path B (removed): ntfs_write_mft_block(): mrec_lock -> extent_lock

Path B is always redundant for extent records because:

1. mark_mft_record_dirty(ext_ni) does NOT dirty the MFT folio.
   It only sets NInoDirty(ext_ni) and marks the base VFS inode dirty
   via __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_DATASYNC), which triggers Path A.
   Therefore, normal extent modifications never create a situation where
   the MFT folio is dirty and Path B is not scheduled.

2. The MFT folio only gets dirtied via ntfs_mft_mark_dirty() inside
   ntfs_mft_record_alloc(). But all identified callers in attrib.c
   (ntfs_attr_add, ntfs_attr_record_move_away,
   ntfs_attr_make_non_resident, ntfs_attr_record_resize) follow through
   with mark_mft_record_dirty(), which triggers Path A to write the
   complete record.

3. ntfs_evict_big_inode() calls ntfs_commit_inode() before freeing extent
   inodes, ensuring all dirty extents are flushed via Path A before the
   base inode leaves the icache.

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-72203?


## How do I fix CVE-2026-72203?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2026-72203 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-72203 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2026-72203 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2026-72203 is a high-severity denial of service vulnerability in Linux, published on 15 Aug 2026. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-72203 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-72203/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-72203/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-72203
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72203
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2026-72203

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-72203/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.