** DISPUTED ** __btrfs_free_extent in fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 calls btrfs_print_leaf in a certain ENOENT case, which allows local users to obtain potentially sensitive information about register values via the dmesg program. NOTE: The BTRFS development team disputes this issues as not being a vulnerability because ?1) The kernel provide facilities to restrict access to dmesg - dmesg_restrict=1 sysctl option. So it's really up to the system administrator to judge whether dmesg access shall be disallowed or not. 2) WARN/WARN_ON are widely used macros in the linux kernel. If this CVE is considered valid this would mean there are literally thousands CVE lurking in the kernel - something which clearly is not the case.?

** DISPUTED ** __btrfs_free_extent in fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 calls btrfs_print_leaf in a certain ENOENT case, which allows local users to obtain potentially sensitive information about register values via the dmesg program. NOTE: The BTRFS development team disputes this issues as not being a vulnerability because “1) The kernel provide facilities to restrict access to dmesg - dmesg_restrict=1 sysctl option. So it's really up to the system administrator to judge whether dmesg access shall be disallowed or not. 2) WARN/WARN_ON are widely used macros in the linux kernel. If this CVE is considered valid this would mean there are literally thousands CVE lurking in the kernel - something which clearly is not the case.”