ZDF
Sign inSign up

Vulnerabilities

Vulnerability · CVE-2026-74591

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-…

Published Aug 22, 2026 · catalog updated Oct 14, 2026 · the affected product

Check if you run it

No confirmed exploitation is on record for CVE-2026-74591. EPSS is 0.65%. Act only if a listed version of the affected product is installed.

Gaps on this record

  • No plain product name is stored. The page cannot tell you which product to check.
  • No version range is stored. A customer cannot check an installed version against this record.
  • No vendor fix or required action is stored. Compare the linked advisory before you change production.
Severity
Critical9.8
Known exploitation
Not in CISA/VulnCheck KEV
EPSS
0.65%
Remediation
Not established
Affected products
See sources for product scope

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.

No affected version ranges are stored yet. Use the vendor advisory before you decide this record does not apply.

How to fix CVE-2026-74591

What to do

Three questions, each answered from this record only. Confirm the vendor advisory before you patch.

Should you patch?

No confirmed exploitation is on record for CVE-2026-74591. EPSS is 0.65%. Act only if a listed version of the affected product is installed.

Which versions are affected?

Affected version ranges are not on this record. Compare the installed version with the linked vendor advisory before you change production.

What should an analyst verify?

No weakness class is stored. EPSS 0.65%. There is no CISA KEV listing. No Exploit-DB or Metasploit reference is linked. Use the source links for the original advisory.

Code

The project this record applies to. Exploit listings stay in References.

Timeline

Detection, updates, and resolution for this record.

  1. Aug 22, 2026 · NIST NVD

    Detected

    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) converge

  2. Oct 14, 2026 · NIST NVD

    Updated

    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) converge

Sources

  • CVE.orgVulnerability recordCVE-2026-74591

    Official CVE identifier

    cve.org
  • FIRST EPSSExploitation probabilityCVE-2026-74591

    30-day exploitation probability 0.6%

    first.org
  • NIST NVDVulnerability recordCVE-2026-74591

    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

    nvd.nist.gov

References

Freshness

Last verified in this catalog Oct 18, 2026. Significant claims (KEV, EPSS, CVSS, affected ranges) come from the source rows above — open the original publisher for the authoritative advisory.