CVE-2026-93243
Last modified
CVE-2026-93243 is a vulnerability of currently unknown severity. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/secretmem: properly account locked pages secretmem accounts folios by treating memory as if it were mlock()'d and thus limited by the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit. However the folios are unevictable and remain so until the inode is evicted, eliminating usual mlock() semantics - mapping folios then unmapping them does not clear their unevictable state, since it depends on AS_UNEVICTABLE, not PG_mlocked. A user can therefore easily work around the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit - simply map then unmap and VmLck no longer counts the secretmem range. Worse, folios are not accounted in the process's RSS, meaning the OOM killer won't know to kill the process. Repeatedly mapping/unmapping (or forking) can then result in the consumption of all available system memory with unevictable folios and cause system instability. A secretmem fd can be passed between processes and over fork so a per-process limit simply does not make sense, so follow the precedent set by io_uring, perf, skbuff, iommufd and xdp by tracking the number of locked pages in user_struct->locked_vm. Since the scope tracked is actually inode lifetime, the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK applies per-user not per-process, so it doesn't make sense to bypass for users with CAP_IPC_LOCK, therefore remove this bypass. There is simply no reason to carry on marking the mapping as mlock()'d since it's misleading and the lifecycle is now correctly handled, so remove this too. Note that secretmem does not support any form of truncation (including hole punching) and the folios are unreclaimable, so the folios need only be accounted on fault and unaccounted on inode destruction. __secretmem_account_pages() is more or less a duplicate of the code that io_uring etc.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/secretmem: properly account locked pages secretmem accounts folios by treating memory as if it were mlock()'d and thus limited by the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit. However the folios are unevictable and remain so until the inode is evicted, eliminating usual mlock() semantics - mapping folios then unmapping them does not clear their unevictable state, since it depends on AS_UNEVICTABLE, not PG_mlocked. A user can therefore easily work around the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limit - simply map then unmap and VmLck no longer counts the secretmem range. Worse, folios are not accounted in the process's RSS, meaning the OOM killer won't know to kill the process. Repeatedly mapping/unmapping (or forking) can then result in the consumption of all available system memory with unevictable folios and cause system instability. A secretmem fd can be passed between processes and over fork so a per-process limit simply does not make sense, so follow the precedent set by io_uring, perf, skbuff, iommufd and xdp by tracking the number of locked pages in user_struct->locked_vm. Since the scope tracked is actually inode lifetime, the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK applies per-user not per-process, so it doesn't make sense to bypass for users with CAP_IPC_LOCK, therefore remove this bypass. There is simply no reason to carry on marking the mapping as mlock()'d since it's misleading and the lifecycle is now correctly handled, so remove this too. Note that secretmem does not support any form of truncation (including hole punching) and the folios are unreclaimable, so the folios need only be accounted on fault and unaccounted on inode destruction. __secretmem_account_pages() is more or less a duplicate of the code that io_uring etc. use, but since this is a bug fix that needs backporting, defer any de-duplication efforts to a follow-up. test_mlock_limit() asserts mlock_future_ok() on mmap(), however this has been removed, so remove the test altogether for the fix. A new test will be sent separately for upstream.
Affected Software
Source: CNA advisory (CVE.org). NVD analysis pending.
| Vendor | Product | Versions |
|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | >= 1507f51255c9ff07d75909a84e7c0d7f3c4b2f49, < 853043cb129473ff2fa0090602be944d96b9d5c9; >= 1507f51255c9ff07d75909a84e7c0d7f3c4b2f49, < 3b4f72bdddff69819d665395376329ef21f37a06; >= 1507f51255c9ff07d75909a84e7c0d7f3c4b2f49, < 97d34aa65c29cca85e3e9050f4c936389b38a054 |
| Linux | Linux | 5.14 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Received
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-93243?
How severe is CVE-2026-93243?
How do I fix CVE-2026-93243?
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-2026-93238In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93239In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-9324Rejected reason: This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn …
- CVE-2026-93240In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93241In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93242In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93244In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93245In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93246In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93247In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93248In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
- CVE-2026-93249In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been re…
Are you affected by CVE-2026-93243?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
