In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/shmem, swap: fix race of truncate and swap entry split
The helper for shmem swap freeing is not handling the order of swap
entries correctly. It uses xa_cmpxchg_irq to erase the swap entry, but it
gets the entry order before that using xa_get_order without lock
protection, and it may get an outdated order value if the entry is split
or changed in other ways after the xa_get_order and before the
xa_cmpxchg_irq.
And besides, the order could grow and be larger than expected, and cause
truncation to erase data beyond the end border. For example, if the
target entry and following entries are swapped in or freed, then a large
folio was added in place and swapped out, using the same entry, the
xa_cmpxchg_irq will still succeed, it's very unlikely to happen though.
To fix that, open code the Xarray cmpxchg and put the order retrieval and
value checking in the same critical section. Also, ensure the order won't
exceed the end border, skip it if the entry goes across the border.
Skipping large swap entries crosses the end border is safe here. Shmem
truncate iterates the range twice, in the first iteration,
find_lock_entries already filtered such entries, and shmem will swapin the
entries that cross the end border and partially truncate the folio (split
the folio or at least zero part of it). So in the second loop here, if we
see a swap entry that crosses the end order, it must at least have its
content erased already.
I observed random swapoff hangs and kernel panics when stress testing
ZSWAP with shmem. After applying this patch, all problems are gone.
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