CVE-2026-23100
CVE Descriptions
mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb_pmd_shared()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb_pmd_shared() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: fixes for PMD table sharing (incl. using mmu_gather)", v3. One functional fix, one performance regression fix, and two related comment fixes. I cleaned up my prototype I recently shared [1] for the performance fix, deferring most of the cleanups I had in the prototype to a later point. While doing that I identified the other things. The goal of this patch set is to be backported to stable trees "fairly" easily. At least patch #1 and #4. Patch #1 fixes hugetlb_pmd_shared() not detecting any sharing Patch #2 + #3 are simple comment fixes that patch #4 interacts with. Patch #4 is a fix for the reported performance regression due to excessive IPI broadcasts during fork()+exit(). The last patch is all about TLB flushes, IPIs and mmu_gather. Read: complicated There are plenty of cleanups in the future to be had + one reasonable optimization on x86. But that's all out of scope for this series. Runtime tested, with a focus on fixing the performance regression using the original reproducer [2] on x86. This patch (of 4): We switched from (wrongly) using the page count to an independent shared count. Now, shared page tables have a refcount of 1 (excluding speculative references) and instead use ptdesc->pt_share_count to identify sharing. We didn't convert hugetlb_pmd_shared(), so right now, we would never detect a shared PMD table as such, because sharing/unsharing no longer touches the refcount of a PMD table. Page migration, like mbind() or migrate_pages() would allow for migrating folios mapped into such shared PMD tables, even though the folios are not exclusive. In smaps we would account them as "private" although they are "shared", and we would be wrongly setting the PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE in the pagemap interface. Fix it by properly using ptdesc_pmd_is_shared() in hugetlb_pmd_shared().CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.10.239 To (excluding) 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.15.186 To (excluding) 5.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.1.142 To (excluding) 6.2
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.6.72 To (excluding) 6.6.127
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.12.9 To (excluding) 6.12.74
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13.1 To (excluding) 6.18.8
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
