In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/hugetlb: restore reservation on error in hugetlb folio copy paths
Two sites in mm/hugetlb.c allocate a hugetlb folio via
alloc_hugetlb_folio() (consuming a VMA reservation) and then call
copy_user_large_folio(), which became int-returning in commit 1cb9dc4b475c
("mm: hwpoison: support recovery from HugePage copy-on-write faults") and
can now fail (e.g. -EHWPOISON on a hwpoisoned source page). On the
failure path, folio_put() restores the global hugetlb pool count through
free_huge_folio(), but the per-VMA reservation map entry is left marked
consumed:
- hugetlb_mfill_atomic_pte() resubmission path (UFFDIO_COPY)
- copy_hugetlb_page_range() fork-time CoW path when
hugetlb_try_dup_anon_rmap() fails (rare: pinned hugetlb anon
folio under fork)
User-visible effect: on UFFDIO_COPY into a private hugetlb VMA where the
resubmission copy fails, the reservation for that address is leaked from
the VMA's reserve map. A subsequent fault at the same address takes the
no-reservation path, and under hugetlb pool pressure the task is SIGBUSed
at an address it had previously reserved. The fork-time CoW path leaks
the same way in the child VMA's reserve map, though it requires the much
rarer combination of pinned hugetlb anon page + hwpoisoned source.
Add the missing restore_reserve_on_error() call before folio_put() on both
error paths.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-06). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it