In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb cgroup rsvd charge/uncharge mismatch
In alloc_hugetlb_folio(), a single h_cg pointer is used for both the rsvd
and non-rsvd hugetlb cgroup charges. When map_chg is set,
hugetlb_cgroup_charge_cgroup_rsvd() stores the charged cgroup in h_cg, but
the immediately following hugetlb_cgroup_charge_cgroup() overwrites h_cg
with the non-rsvd cgroup pointer.
As a result, hugetlb_cgroup_commit_charge_rsvd() stores the wrong
(non-rsvd) cgroup pointer into the folio's rsvd slot.
When the folio is later freed, free_huge_folio() unconditionally calls
both hugetlb_cgroup_uncharge_folio() and
hugetlb_cgroup_uncharge_folio_rsvd(). The rsvd uncharge reads back the
wrong cgroup from the folio and decrements a counter that was never
charged for that cgroup, causing a page_counter underflow:
page_counter underflow: -512 nr_pages=512
WARNING: mm/page_counter.c:61 at page_counter_cancel
Fix this by introducing a separate h_cg_rsvd pointer exclusively for the
rsvd charge path, keeping the rsvd and non-rsvd charges fully independent
through their charge, commit, and error uncharge paths.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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