In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/filemap: fix filemap_get_folios_contig THP panic
Patch series "memfd-pin huge page fixes".
Fix multiple bugs that occur when using memfd_pin_folios with hugetlb
pages and THP. The hugetlb bugs only bite when the page is not yet
faulted in when memfd_pin_folios is called. The THP bug bites when the
starting offset passed to memfd_pin_folios is not huge page aligned. See
the commit messages for details.
This patch (of 5):
memfd_pin_folios on memory backed by THP panics if the requested start
offset is not huge page aligned:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000036
RIP: 0010:filemap_get_folios_contig+0xdf/0x290
RSP: 0018:ffffc9002092fbe8 EFLAGS: 00010202
RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 0000000000000002
The fault occurs here, because xas_load returns a folio with value 2:
filemap_get_folios_contig()
for (folio = xas_load(&xas); folio && xas.xa_index <= end;
folio = xas_next(&xas)) {
...
if (!folio_try_get(folio)) <-- BOOM
"2" is an xarray sibling entry. We get it because memfd_pin_folios does
not round the indices passed to filemap_get_folios_contig to huge page
boundaries for THP, so we load from the middle of a huge page range see a
sibling. (It does round for hugetlbfs, at the is_file_hugepages test).
To fix, if the folio is a sibling, then return the next index as the
starting point for the next call to filemap_get_folios_contig.
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