CVE-2026-23219
CVE Descriptions
mm/slab: Add alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook for memcg_alloc_abort_single
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/slab: Add alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook for memcg_alloc_abort_single When CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG is enabled, the following warning may be noticed: [ 3959.023862] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 3959.023891] alloc_tag was not cleared (got tag for lib/xarray.c:378) [ 3959.023947] WARNING: ./include/linux/alloc_tag.h:155 at alloc_tag_add+0x128/0x178, CPU#6: mkfs.ntfs/113998 [ 3959.023978] Modules linked in: dns_resolver tun brd overlay exfat btrfs blake2b libblake2b xor xor_neon raid6_pq loop sctp ip6_udp_tunnel udp_tunnel ext4 crc16 mbcache jbd2 rfkill sunrpc vfat fat sg fuse nfnetlink sr_mod virtio_gpu cdrom drm_client_lib virtio_dma_buf drm_shmem_helper drm_kms_helper ghash_ce drm sm4 backlight virtio_net net_failover virtio_scsi failover virtio_console virtio_blk virtio_mmio dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_multipath dm_mod i2c_dev aes_neon_bs aes_ce_blk [last unloaded: hwpoison_inject] [ 3959.024170] CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 113998 Comm: mkfs.ntfs Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W 6.19.0-rc7+ #7 PREEMPT(voluntary) [ 3959.024182] Tainted: [W]=WARN [ 3959.024186] Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 [ 3959.024192] pstate: 604000c5 (nZCv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 3959.024199] pc : alloc_tag_add+0x128/0x178 [ 3959.024207] lr : alloc_tag_add+0x128/0x178 [ 3959.024214] sp : ffff80008b696d60 [ 3959.024219] x29: ffff80008b696d60 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: 0000000000000240 [ 3959.024232] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000240 x24: ffff800085d17860 [ 3959.024245] x23: 0000000000402800 x22: ffff0000c0012dc0 x21: 00000000000002d0 [ 3959.024257] x20: ffff0000e6ef3318 x19: ffff800085ae0410 x18: 0000000000000000 [ 3959.024269] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000000000000000 [ 3959.024281] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000001 x12: ffff600064101293 [ 3959.024292] x11: 1fffe00064101292 x10: ffff600064101292 x9 : dfff800000000000 [ 3959.024305] x8 : 00009fff9befed6e x7 : ffff000320809493 x6 : 0000000000000001 [ 3959.024316] x5 : ffff000320809490 x4 : ffff600064101293 x3 : ffff800080691838 [ 3959.024328] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffff0000d5bcd640 [ 3959.024340] Call trace: [ 3959.024346] alloc_tag_add+0x128/0x178 (P) [ 3959.024355] __alloc_tagging_slab_alloc_hook+0x11c/0x1a8 [ 3959.024362] kmem_cache_alloc_lru_noprof+0x1b8/0x5e8 [ 3959.024369] xas_alloc+0x304/0x4f0 [ 3959.024381] xas_create+0x1e0/0x4a0 [ 3959.024388] xas_store+0x68/0xda8 [ 3959.024395] __filemap_add_folio+0x5b0/0xbd8 [ 3959.024409] filemap_add_folio+0x16c/0x7e0 [ 3959.024416] __filemap_get_folio_mpol+0x2dc/0x9e8 [ 3959.024424] iomap_get_folio+0xfc/0x180 [ 3959.024435] __iomap_get_folio+0x2f8/0x4b8 [ 3959.024441] iomap_write_begin+0x198/0xc18 [ 3959.024448] iomap_write_iter+0x2ec/0x8f8 [ 3959.024454] iomap_file_buffered_write+0x19c/0x290 [ 3959.024461] blkdev_write_iter+0x38c/0x978 [ 3959.024470] vfs_write+0x4d4/0x928 [ 3959.024482] ksys_write+0xfc/0x1f8 [ 3959.024489] __arm64_sys_write+0x74/0xb0 [ 3959.024496] invoke_syscall+0xd4/0x258 [ 3959.024507] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xb4/0x240 [ 3959.024514] do_el0_svc+0x48/0x68 [ 3959.024520] el0_svc+0x40/0xf8 [ 3959.024526] el0t_64_sync_handler+0xa0/0xe8 [ 3959.024533] el0t_64_sync+0x1ac/0x1b0 [ 3959.024540] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- When __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook() fails, there are two different free paths depending on whether size == 1 or size != 1. In the kmem_cache_free_bulk() path, we do call alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook(). However, in memcg_alloc_abort_single() we don't, the above warning will be triggered on the next allocation. Therefore, add alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook() to the memcg_alloc_abort_single() path.CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed. |
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) 6.10 To (excluding) 6.12.70
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.10
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
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
