In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/rmap: initialize nr_pages to 1 at loop start in try_to_unmap_one
Initialize nr_pages to 1 at the start of each loop iteration, like
folio_referenced_one() does.
Without this, nr_pages computed by a previous folio_unmap_pte_batch() call
can be reused on a later iteration that does not run
folio_unmap_pte_batch() again.
mmap a 64K large folio with MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_DROPPABLE, then call
madvise(MADV_FREE), then make the last page device-exclusive via
HMM_DMIRROR_EXCLUSIVE.
Trigger node reclaim through sysfs. Now, in try_to_unmap_one(), we will
first clear the first 15 out of 16 entries mapping the lazyfree folio.
This will set nr_pages to 15. In the next pvmw walk, this nr_pages gets
reused on a device-exclusive pte, thus potentially corrupting folio
refcount/mapcount.
At the moment, I have a userspace program which can make the kernel spit
out a trace, but the blow up is in folio_referenced_one(), because there
are existing bugs in the interaction between device-private and rmap
(which too I am investigating). I did a one liner kernel change to avoid
going into folio_referenced_one(), and the kernel blows up at
folio_remove_rmap_ptes in try_to_unmap_one which is what I wanted.
Note that the bug is there not since file folio batching but lazyfree
folio batching, since device-exclusive only works for anonymous folios.
Userspace visible effect is simply kernel crashing somewhere due to
refcount/mapcount corruption.
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 2026-10-27). 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