In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/hugetlb: fix folio is still mapped when deleted
Migration may be raced with fallocating hole. remove_inode_single_folio
will unmap the folio if the folio is still mapped. However, it's called
without folio lock. If the folio is migrated and the mapped pte has been
converted to migration entry, folio_mapped() returns false, and won't
unmap it. Due to extra refcount held by remove_inode_single_folio,
migration fails, restores migration entry to normal pte, and the folio is
mapped again. As a result, we triggered BUG in filemap_unaccount_folio.
The log is as follows:
BUG: Bad page cache in process hugetlb pfn:156c00
page: refcount:515 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000099fef6e1 index:0x0 pfn:0x156c00
head: order:9 mapcount:1 entire_mapcount:1 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
aops:hugetlbfs_aops ino:dcc dentry name(?):"my_hugepage_file"
flags: 0x17ffffc00000c1(locked|waiters|head|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x1fffff)
page_type: f4(hugetlb)
page dumped because: still mapped when deleted
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 395 Comm: hugetlb Not tainted 6.17.0-rc5-00044-g7aac71907bde-dirty #484 NONE
Hardware name: QEMU Ubuntu 24.04 PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70
filemap_unaccount_folio+0xc4/0x1c0
__filemap_remove_folio+0x38/0x1c0
filemap_remove_folio+0x41/0xd0
remove_inode_hugepages+0x142/0x250
hugetlbfs_fallocate+0x471/0x5a0
vfs_fallocate+0x149/0x380
Hold folio lock before checking if the folio is mapped to avold race with
migration.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-03). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it