Bug 2521395 (CVE-2026-74591) - CVE-2026-74591 kernel: mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying
Summary: CVE-2026-74591 kernel: mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2026-74591
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-08-22 15:43 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-08-24 10:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2026-08-22 15:43:26 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying

In __filemap_add_folio()'s split-a-conflict loop, xas_set_order() is
applied repeatedly: each application modifies xas.xa_index, rounding it
down according to the split_order attempted at that stage: and if all goes
as intended, it eventually (or immediately) converges on an
xas_try_split() to the required folio_order, with xas.xa_index now the
same as index: then xas_store() puts the new folio into the xarray there.

But if a new node was needed, and GFP_NOWAIT allocation did not get one,
the lock is dropped, xas_nomem() used to allocate, and sequence retried. 
If (that part of) the xarray is unchanged when the lock is reacquired, no
problem.  But what if the conflict was meanwhile resolved by another
thread (perhaps even doing the same thing, inserting a folio at that same
index)?  Isn't there a danger of now putting our folio into the xarray at
an intermediate rounded-down index?  With !folio_contains() bug to follow,
when CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y is checking for that.

Fix this with an xas_set_order() to restore the original xas.xa_index at
the bottom of the loop, so the retry does a full re-evaluation after
reacquiring the lock, and cannot reach xas_store() with the wrong index.

Production was suffering from rare SIGILLs and SIGSEGVs, executable text
found a page away from where it belonged, !folio_contains() bug hit when
debug enabled: symptoms not seen since this patch went in.

Comment 1 Mauro Matteo Cascella 2026-08-24 10:33:15 UTC
Upstream advisory:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2026082213-CVE-2026-74591-72ed@gregkh/T


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.