CVE-2026-64181
Last modified
CVE-2026-64181 is a high-severity vulnerability rated 7.8/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: fix __vm_normal_page() to handle missing support for pmd_special()/pud_special() On x86 32-bit with THP enabled, zap_huge_pmd() is seen to generate a "WARNING: mm/memory.c:735 at __vm_normal_page+0x6a/0x7d", from the VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(is_zero_pfn(pfn) || is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn)); followed by "BUG: Bad rss-counter state"s, then later "BUG: Bad page state"s when reclaim gets to call shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan(). It's as if the _PAGE_SPECIAL bit never got set in the huge_zero pmd: and indeed, whereas pte_special() and pte_mkspecial() are subject to a dedicated CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL, pmd_special() and pmd_mkspecial() are subject to CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PMD_PFNMAP, which is never enabled on any 32-bit architecture. While the problem was exposed through commit d80a9cb1a64a ("mm/huge_memory: add and use normal_or_softleaf_folio_pmd()"), it was an oversight in commit af38538801c6 ("mm/memory: factor out common code from vm_normal_page_*()") and would result in other problems: * huge zero folio accounted in smaps, pagemap (PAGE_IS_FILE) and numamaps as file-backed THP * folio_walk_start() returning the folio even without FW_ZEROPAGE set. Callers seem to tolerate that, though. ... and triggering the VM_WARN_ON_ONE(), although never reported so far. To fix it, teach vm_normal_page_pmd()/vm_normal_page_pud() to consider whether pmd_special/pud_special is actually implemented.. EPSS estimates a 0.13% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: fix __vm_normal_page() to handle missing support for pmd_special()/pud_special() On x86 32-bit with THP enabled, zap_huge_pmd() is seen to generate a "WARNING: mm/memory.c:735 at __vm_normal_page+0x6a/0x7d", from the VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(is_zero_pfn(pfn) || is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn)); followed by "BUG: Bad rss-counter state"s, then later "BUG: Bad page state"s when reclaim gets to call shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan(). It's as if the _PAGE_SPECIAL bit never got set in the huge_zero pmd: and indeed, whereas pte_special() and pte_mkspecial() are subject to a dedicated CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL, pmd_special() and pmd_mkspecial() are subject to CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PMD_PFNMAP, which is never enabled on any 32-bit architecture. While the problem was exposed through commit d80a9cb1a64a ("mm/huge_memory: add and use normal_or_softleaf_folio_pmd()"), it was an oversight in commit af38538801c6 ("mm/memory: factor out common code from vm_normal_page_*()") and would result in other problems: * huge zero folio accounted in smaps, pagemap (PAGE_IS_FILE) and numamaps as file-backed THP * folio_walk_start() returning the folio even without FW_ZEROPAGE set. Callers seem to tolerate that, though. ... and triggering the VM_WARN_ON_ONE(), although never reported so far. To fix it, teach vm_normal_page_pmd()/vm_normal_page_pud() to consider whether pmd_special/pud_special is actually implemented.
Metrics
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Affected Software
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Update |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.18, < 6.18.34 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.19, < 7.0.11 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 7.1 | Rc1 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Analyzed
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-64181?
How severe is CVE-2026-64181?
How do I fix CVE-2026-64181?
How Strix Helps
- How Strix found a critical auth bypass in etcdStrix autonomously discovered a critical authentication bypass in etcd, later designated CVE-2026-33413.
- Autonomous PentestingAI agents that find and validate exploitable vulnerabilities like this one across your applications.
- PR ReviewsPentest every pull request so vulnerable code is caught before it ships to production.
- AI Penetration TestingHow AI-driven penetration testing continuously covers your attack surface.
Related CVEs from 2026
- CVE-2026-64176In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…8.1
- CVE-2026-64177In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-64178In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…8.8
- CVE-2026-64179In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
- CVE-2026-6418An issue was discovered in the Shared Account Synchronizatio…4.9
- CVE-2026-64180In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
- CVE-2026-64182In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
- CVE-2026-64183In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
- CVE-2026-64184In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
- CVE-2026-64185In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
- CVE-2026-64186In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…7.1
- CVE-2026-64187In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…5.5
Are you affected by CVE-2026-64181?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
