In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
uprobes: Reject the shared zeropage in uprobe_write_opcode()
We triggered the following crash in syzkaller tests:
BUG: Bad page state in process syz.7.38 pfn:1eff3
page: refcount:0 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x1eff3
flags: 0x3fffff00004004(referenced|reserved|node=0|zone=1|lastcpupid=0x1fffff)
raw: 003fffff00004004 ffffe6c6c07bfcc8 ffffe6c6c07bfcc8 0000000000000000
raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000fffffffe 0000000000000000
page dumped because: PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE flag(s) set
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x32/0x50
bad_page+0x69/0xf0
free_unref_page_prepare+0x401/0x500
free_unref_page+0x6d/0x1b0
uprobe_write_opcode+0x460/0x8e0
install_breakpoint.part.0+0x51/0x80
register_for_each_vma+0x1d9/0x2b0
__uprobe_register+0x245/0x300
bpf_uprobe_multi_link_attach+0x29b/0x4f0
link_create+0x1e2/0x280
__sys_bpf+0x75f/0xac0
__x64_sys_bpf+0x1a/0x30
do_syscall_64+0x56/0x100
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:00000000452453e0 type:MM_FILEPAGES val:-1
The following syzkaller test case can be used to reproduce:
r2 = creat(&(0x7f0000000000)='./file0\x00', 0x8)
write$nbd(r2, &(0x7f0000000580)=ANY=[], 0x10)
r4 = openat(0xffffffffffffff9c, &(0x7f0000000040)='./file0\x00', 0x42, 0x0)
mmap$IORING_OFF_SQ_RING(&(0x7f0000ffd000/0x3000)=nil, 0x3000, 0x0, 0x12, r4, 0x0)
r5 = userfaultfd(0x80801)
ioctl$UFFDIO_API(r5, 0xc018aa3f, &(0x7f0000000040)={0xaa, 0x20})
r6 = userfaultfd(0x80801)
ioctl$UFFDIO_API(r6, 0xc018aa3f, &(0x7f0000000140))
ioctl$UFFDIO_REGISTER(r6, 0xc020aa00, &(0x7f0000000100)={{&(0x7f0000ffc000/0x4000)=nil, 0x4000}, 0x2})
ioctl$UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE(r5, 0xc020aa04, &(0x7f0000000000)={{&(0x7f0000ffd000/0x1000)=nil, 0x1000}})
r7 = bpf$PROG_LOAD(0x5, &(0x7f0000000140)={0x2, 0x3, &(0x7f0000000200)=ANY=[@ANYBLOB="1800000000120000000000000000000095"], &(0x7f0000000000)='GPL\x00', 0x7, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, '\x00', 0x0, @fallback=0x30, 0xffffffffffffffff, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x10, 0x0, @void, @value}, 0x94)
bpf$BPF_LINK_CREATE_XDP(0x1c, &(0x7f0000000040)={r7, 0x0, 0x30, 0x1e, @val=@uprobe_multi={&(0x7f0000000080)='./file0\x00', &(0x7f0000000100)=[0x2], 0x0, 0x0, 0x1}}, 0x40)
The cause is that zero pfn is set to the PTE without increasing the RSS
count in mfill_atomic_pte_zeropage() and the refcount of zero folio does
not increase accordingly. Then, the operation on the same pfn is performed
in uprobe_write_opcode()->__replace_page() to unconditional decrease the
RSS count and old_folio's refcount.
Therefore, two bugs are introduced:
- The RSS count is incorrect, when process exit, the check_mm() report
error "Bad rss-count".
- The reserved folio (zero folio) is freed when folio->refcount is zero,
then free_pages_prepare->free_page_is_bad() report error
"Bad page state".
There is more, the following warning could also theoretically be triggered:
__replace_page()
-> ...
-> folio_remove_rmap_pte()
-> VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(is_zero_folio(folio), folio)
Considering that uprobe hit on the zero folio is a very rare case, just
reject zero old folio immediately after get_user_page_vma_remote().
[ mingo: Cleaned up the changelog ]
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 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.
The score's inputs: 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