In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/huge_memory: unlock i_mmap_rwsem before releasing after-split folios
__folio_split() keeps dereferencing the mapping after the split:
shmem_uncharge(mapping->host) and remap_page() while the folios are still
frozen/locked, and i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping) at the very end, after the
after-split folios have been unlocked and freed.
Nothing holds an inode reference across that. The split relies on @folio
-- which the beyond-EOF drop loop never removes, as it starts at
folio_next(folio) -- staying locked and in the page cache to hold off
eviction. But the unlock loop unlocks @folio before i_mmap_unlock_read()
runs. If the caller's @lock_at is a tail beyond EOF, as memory_failure()
passes when splitting a poisoned tail of a shmem THP that reaches past
i_size during truncation, it too is gone from the page cache; so once
@folio is unlocked no locked, in-cache folio pins the inode, and a
concurrent final iput() can evict and RCU-free it before
i_mmap_unlock_read() touches i_mmap_rwsem:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __up_read+0x634/0x790
i_mmap_unlock_read include/linux/fs.h:537 [inline]
__folio_split+0x732/0x1640 mm/huge_memory.c:4100
try_to_split_thp_page+0xab/0x390 mm/memory-failure.c:1675
memory_failure+0x1394/0x26e0 mm/memory-failure.c:2470
Freed by task 4601:
shmem_free_in_core_inode+0x54/0xb0 mm/shmem.c:5177
evict+0x57f/0xac0 fs/inode.c:870
Do every mapping dereference while @folio still pins the inode: drop
i_mmap_rwsem right after remap_page(), before the loop that unlocks and
frees the after-split folios, and clear @mapping so the exit path does not
unlock it again. shmem_uncharge() and remap_page() already run before
that point, so after this nothing past the unlock loop touches the inode
or the mapping.
This is now a rule the split depends on, alongside keeping @folio frozen
until the page cache is updated: no inode or mapping dereference once the
after-split folios start being unlocked.
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
- 0.1% 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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