In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: userfaultfd: fix race of userfaultfd_move and swap cache
This commit fixes two kinds of races, they may have different results:
Barry reported a BUG_ON in commit c50f8e6053b0, we may see the same
BUG_ON if the filemap lookup returned NULL and folio is added to swap
cache after that.
If another kind of race is triggered (folio changed after lookup) we
may see RSS counter is corrupted:
[ 406.893936] BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:ffff0000c5a9ddc0
type:MM_ANONPAGES val:-1
[ 406.894071] BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:ffff0000c5a9ddc0
type:MM_SHMEMPAGES val:1
Because the folio is being accounted to the wrong VMA.
I'm not sure if there will be any data corruption though, seems no.
The issues above are critical already.
On seeing a swap entry PTE, userfaultfd_move does a lockless swap cache
lookup, and tries to move the found folio to the faulting vma. Currently,
it relies on checking the PTE value to ensure that the moved folio still
belongs to the src swap entry and that no new folio has been added to the
swap cache, which turns out to be unreliable.
While working and reviewing the swap table series with Barry, following
existing races are observed and reproduced [1]:
In the example below, move_pages_pte is moving src_pte to dst_pte, where
src_pte is a swap entry PTE holding swap entry S1, and S1 is not in the
swap cache:
CPU1 CPU2
userfaultfd_move
move_pages_pte()
entry = pte_to_swp_entry(orig_src_pte);
// Here it got entry = S1
... < interrupted> ...
// folio A is a new allocated folio
// and get installed into src_pte
// src_pte now points to folio A, S1
// has swap count == 0, it can be freed
// by folio_swap_swap or swap
// allocator's reclaim.
// folio B is a folio in another VMA.
// S1 is freed, folio B can use it
// for swap out with no problem.
...
folio = filemap_get_folio(S1)
// Got folio B here !!!
... < interrupted again> ...
// Now S1 is free to be used again.
// Now src_pte is a swap entry PTE
// holding S1 again.
folio_trylock(folio)
move_swap_pte
double_pt_lock
is_pte_pages_stable
// Check passed because src_pte == S1
folio_move_anon_rmap(...)
// Moved invalid folio B here !!!
The race window is very short and requires multiple collisions of multiple
rare events, so it's very unlikely to happen, but with a deliberately
constructed reproducer and increased time window, it can be reproduced
easily.
This can be fixed by checking if the folio returned by filemap is the
valid swap cache folio after acquiring the folio lock.
Another similar race is possible: filemap_get_folio may return NULL, but
folio (A) could be swapped in and then swapped out again using the same
swap entry after the lookup. In such a case, folio (A) may remain in the
swap cache, so it must be moved too:
CPU1 CPU2
userfaultfd_move
move_pages_pte()
entry = pte_to_swp_entry(orig_src_pte);
// Here it got entry = S1, and S1 is not in swap cache
folio = filemap_get
---truncated---
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-24). 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