In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/huge_memory: fix use of NULL folio in move_pages_huge_pmd()
move_pages_huge_pmd() handles UFFDIO_MOVE for both normal THPs and huge
zero pages. For the huge zero page path, src_folio is explicitly set to
NULL, and is used as a sentinel to skip folio operations like lock and
rmap.
In the huge zero page branch, src_folio is NULL, so folio_mk_pmd(NULL,
pgprot) passes NULL through folio_pfn() and page_to_pfn(). With
SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP this silently produces a bogus PFN, installing a PMD
pointing to non-existent physical memory. On other memory models it is a
NULL dereference.
Use page_folio(src_page) to obtain the valid huge zero folio from the
page, which was obtained from pmd_page() and remains valid throughout.
After commit d82d09e48219 ("mm/huge_memory: mark PMD mappings of the huge
zero folio special"), moved huge zero PMDs must remain special so
vm_normal_page_pmd() continues to treat them as special mappings.
move_pages_huge_pmd() currently reconstructs the destination PMD in the
huge zero page branch, which drops PMD state such as pmd_special() on
architectures with CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL. As a result,
vm_normal_page_pmd() can treat the moved huge zero PMD as a normal page
and corrupt its refcount.
Instead of reconstructing the PMD from the folio, derive the destination
entry from src_pmdval after pmdp_huge_clear_flush(), then handle the PMD
metadata the same way move_huge_pmd() does for moved entries by marking it
soft-dirty and clearing uffd-wp.
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 2026-10-17). 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: 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.
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