In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs/proc/task_mmu: fix hugetlb self-deadlock in pagemap_scan_pte_hole()
A PAGEMAP_SCAN ioctl requesting PM_SCAN_WP_MATCHING on a hugetlb VMA hangs
the calling thread, unkillably, as soon as the scan reaches an unpopulated
part of the range:
do_pagemap_scan()
walk_page_range()
walk_hugetlb_range()
hugetlb_vma_lock_read() # take the vma lock for read ...
pagemap_scan_pte_hole() # ... ->pte_hole() for a hole
uffd_wp_range()
change_protection()
hugetlb_change_protection()
hugetlb_vma_lock_write() # ... and block taking it for write
walk_hugetlb_range() holds the hugetlb vma lock for read across the whole
walk. A present entry goes to ->hugetlb_entry(); an unpopulated one goes
to ->pte_hole(), i.e. pagemap_scan_pte_hole(). To write-protect the hole
that handler calls uffd_wp_range(), which on a hugetlb VMA reaches
hugetlb_change_protection() and takes the same vma lock for write. The
thread then blocks in down_write() waiting for the read lock it is itself
holding.
The populated path avoids this: pagemap_scan_hugetlb_entry()
write-protects the entry inline under the page-table lock and never enters
hugetlb_change_protection().
Do the same for holes. Fault in the page table and install the uffd-wp
marker directly with make_uffd_wp_huge_pte() under the page-table lock,
rather than routing through uffd_wp_range(). That is the same sequence
hugetlb_change_protection() runs for an unpopulated entry, minus the vma
write lock -- which is safe to skip because PMD sharing is disabled on
uffd-wp VMAs (hugetlb_unshare_all_pmds() runs at registration), leaving
nothing for that lock to serialise against.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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