In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: fix crashes from deferred split racing folio migration
Even on 6.10-rc6, I've been seeing elusive "Bad page state"s (often on
flags when freeing, yet the flags shown are not bad: PG_locked had been
set and cleared??), and VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page) == 0)s from
deferred_split_scan()'s folio_put(), and a variety of other BUG and WARN
symptoms implying double free by deferred split and large folio migration.
6.7 commit 9bcef5973e31 ("mm: memcg: fix split queue list crash when large
folio migration") was right to fix the memcg-dependent locking broken in
85ce2c517ade ("memcontrol: only transfer the memcg data for migration"),
but missed a subtlety of deferred_split_scan(): it moves folios to its own
local list to work on them without split_queue_lock, during which time
folio->_deferred_list is not empty, but even the "right" lock does nothing
to secure the folio and the list it is on.
Fortunately, deferred_split_scan() is careful to use folio_try_get(): so
folio_migrate_mapping() can avoid the race by folio_undo_large_rmappable()
while the old folio's reference count is temporarily frozen to 0 - adding
such a freeze in the !mapping case too (originally, folio lock and
unmapping and no swap cache left an anon folio unreachable, so no freezing
was needed there: but the deferred split queue offers a way to reach it).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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