CVE-2026-31648 : Detail

CVE-2026-31648

7.8
/
High
0.02%V4
Local
2026-04-24
15h16 +00:00
2026-04-27
20h13 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: filemap: fix nr_pages calculation overflow in filemap_map_pages() When running stress-ng on my Arm64 machine with v7.0-rc3 kernel, I encountered some very strange crash issues showing up as "Bad page state": " [ 734.496287] BUG: Bad page state in process stress-ng-env pfn:415735fb [ 734.496427] page: refcount:0 mapcount:1 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x4cf316 pfn:0x415735fb [ 734.496434] flags: 0x57fffe000000800(owner_2|node=1|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x3ffff) [ 734.496439] raw: 057fffe000000800 0000000000000000 dead000000000122 0000000000000000 [ 734.496440] raw: 00000000004cf316 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 [ 734.496442] page dumped because: nonzero mapcount " After analyzing this page’s state, it is hard to understand why the mapcount is not 0 while the refcount is 0, since this page is not where the issue first occurred. By enabling the CONFIG_DEBUG_VM config, I can reproduce the crash as well and captured the first warning where the issue appears: " [ 734.469226] page: refcount:33 mapcount:0 mapping:00000000bef2d187 index:0x81a0 pfn:0x415735c0 [ 734.469304] head: order:5 mapcount:0 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0 [ 734.469315] memcg:ffff000807a8ec00 [ 734.469320] aops:ext4_da_aops ino:100b6f dentry name(?):"stress-ng-mmaptorture-9397-0-2736200540" [ 734.469335] flags: 0x57fffe400000069(locked|uptodate|lru|head|node=1|zone=2|lastcpupid=0x3ffff) ...... [ 734.469364] page dumped because: VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO((_Generic((page + nr_pages - 1), const struct page *: (const struct folio *)_compound_head(page + nr_pages - 1), struct page *: (struct folio *)_compound_head(page + nr_pages - 1))) != folio) [ 734.469390] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 734.469393] WARNING: ./include/linux/rmap.h:351 at folio_add_file_rmap_ptes+0x3b8/0x468, CPU#90: stress-ng-mlock/9430 [ 734.469551] folio_add_file_rmap_ptes+0x3b8/0x468 (P) [ 734.469555] set_pte_range+0xd8/0x2f8 [ 734.469566] filemap_map_folio_range+0x190/0x400 [ 734.469579] filemap_map_pages+0x348/0x638 [ 734.469583] do_fault_around+0x140/0x198 ...... [ 734.469640] el0t_64_sync+0x184/0x188 " The code that triggers the warning is: "VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(page_folio(page + nr_pages - 1) != folio, folio)", which indicates that set_pte_range() tried to map beyond the large folio’s size. By adding more debug information, I found that 'nr_pages' had overflowed in filemap_map_pages(), causing set_pte_range() to establish mappings for a range exceeding the folio size, potentially corrupting fields of pages that do not belong to this folio (e.g., page->_mapcount). After above analysis, I think the possible race is as follows: CPU 0 CPU 1 filemap_map_pages() ext4_setattr() //get and lock folio with old inode->i_size next_uptodate_folio() ....... //shrink the inode->i_size i_size_write(inode, attr->ia_size); //calculate the end_pgoff with the new inode->i_size file_end = DIV_ROUND_UP(i_size_read(mapping->host), PAGE_SIZE) - 1; end_pgoff = min(end_pgoff, file_end); ...... //nr_pages can be overflowed, cause xas.xa_index > end_pgoff end = folio_next_index(folio) - 1; nr_pages = min(end, end_pgoff) - xas.xa_index + 1; ...... //map large folio filemap_map_folio_range() ...... //truncate folios truncate_pagecache(inode, inode->i_size); To fix this issue, move the 'end_pgoff' calculation before next_uptodate_folio(), so the retrieved folio stays consistent with the file end to avoid ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

These 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.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.1.159 To (excluding) 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.6.117 To (excluding) 6.6.135

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.12.1 To (excluding) 6.12.82

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.23

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.19 To (excluding) 6.19.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

References