In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/hugetlb: fix list corruption in allocate_file_region_entries()
allocate_file_region_entries() tops up resv->region_cache with freshly
allocated file_region descriptors. The allocation uses GFP_KERNEL, so
resv->lock is dropped around it: the new entries are gathered on a
stack-local list head, allocated_regions, and spliced into
resv->region_cache once the lock is re-acquired.
The splice used list_splice(), which moves the entries but does not
re-initialize the source head, so allocated_regions is left pointing at an
entry that now lives on resv->region_cache. The top-up runs in a while
loop that re-checks the cache deficit after re-acquiring the lock. For a
shared mapping the resv_map is shared by every mapper of the hugetlbfs
inode, so a concurrent region_chg()/region_add()/region_del() on the same
resv_map can consume cache entries during the unlocked window and force a
second iteration. That iteration calls list_add() on the stale head and
corrupts the list; with CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST the __list_add_valid() check
trips:
list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (ffffc900011ff7f8),
but was ffff88814c281460. (next=ffff88814c545640).
kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:31!
allocate_file_region_entries+0x191/0x420
region_chg+0x267/0x300
hugetlb_reserve_pages+0x387/0xc80
hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x2ce/0x3f0
mmap_region+0x1348/0x1a80
do_mmap+0x85e/0xb90
vm_mmap_pgoff+0x18c/0x330
ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x2a1/0x3e0
do_syscall_64+0xd7/0x420
Without CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST the bad list_add() silently links a kernel-stack
address into resv->region_cache, leading to later use-after-free.
This was observed as a real host panic on a dense KVM host where a QEMU
guest-RAM hugetlbfs file was mapped MAP_SHARED by both QEMU and a separate
SPDK/DPDK vhost-user target, generating concurrent region_* traffic on one
shared resv_map.
Use list_splice_init() so the source head is re-initialized empty after
each splice, making the retry loop safe.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-11-07). 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)14 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 total (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