CVE-2026-23077

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/vma: fix anon_vma UAF on mremap() faulted, unfaulted merge Patch series "mm/vma: fix anon_vma UAF on mremap() faulted, unfaulted merge", v2. Commit 879bca0a2c4f ("mm/vma: fix incorrectly disallowed anonymous VMA merges") introduced the ability to merge previously unavailable VMA merge scenarios. However, it is handling merges incorrectly when it comes to mremap() of a faulted VMA adjacent to an unfaulted VMA. The issues arise in three cases: 1. Previous VMA unfaulted: copied -----| v |-----------|.............| | unfaulted |(faulted VMA)| |-----------|.............| prev 2. Next VMA unfaulted: copied -----| v |.............|-----------| |(faulted VMA)| unfaulted | |.............|-----------| next 3. Both adjacent VMAs unfaulted: copied -----| v |-----------|.............|-----------| | unfaulted |(faulted VMA)| unfaulted | |-----------|.............|-----------| prev next This series fixes each of these cases, and introduces self tests to assert that the issues are corrected. I also test a further case which was already handled, to assert that my changes continues to correctly handle it: 4. prev unfaulted, next faulted: copied -----| v |-----------|.............|-----------| | unfaulted |(faulted VMA)| faulted | |-----------|.............|-----------| prev next This bug was discovered via a syzbot report, linked to in the first patch in the series, I confirmed that this series fixes the bug. I also discovered that we are failing to check that the faulted VMA was not forked when merging a copied VMA in cases 1-3 above, an issue this series also addresses. I also added self tests to assert that this is resolved (and confirmed that the tests failed prior to this). I also cleaned up vma_expand() as part of this work, renamed vma_had_uncowed_parents() to vma_is_fork_child() as the previous name was unduly confusing, and simplified the comments around this function. This patch (of 4): Commit 879bca0a2c4f ("mm/vma: fix incorrectly disallowed anonymous VMA merges") introduced the ability to merge previously unavailable VMA merge scenarios. The key piece of logic introduced was the ability to merge a faulted VMA immediately next to an unfaulted VMA, which relies upon dup_anon_vma() to correctly handle anon_vma state. In the case of the merge of an existing VMA (that is changing properties of a VMA and then merging if those properties are shared by adjacent VMAs), dup_anon_vma() is invoked correctly. However in the case of the merge of a new VMA, a corner case peculiar to mremap() was missed. The issue is that vma_expand() only performs dup_anon_vma() if the target (the VMA that will ultimately become the merged VMA): is not the next VMA, i.e. the one that appears after the range in which the new VMA is to be established. A key insight here is that in all other cases other than mremap(), a new VMA merge either expands an existing VMA, meaning that the target VMA will be that VMA, or would have anon_vma be NULL. Specifically: * __mmap_region() - no anon_vma in place, initial mapping. * do_brk_flags() - expanding an existing VMA. * vma_merge_extend() - expanding an existing VMA. * relocate_vma_down() - no anon_vma in place, initial mapping. In addition, we are in the unique situation of needing to duplicate anon_vma state from a VMA that is neither the previous or next VMA being merged with. dup_anon_vma() deals exclusively with the target=unfaulted, src=faulted case. This leaves four possibilities, in each case where the copied VMA is faulted: 1. Previous VMA unfaulted: copied -----| ---truncated---

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

1. 2026-02-04 17:16 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
2. 2026-06-17 10:20 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
• Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.

Details

Published

2026-02-04 17:16 UTC

Last modified

2026-06-17 10:20 UTC

Exploit probability

0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days

Weakness

CWE-416 · Use after free

Record status

Modified

Affected

• Linux Kernel < 6.18.8
• Linux Kernel 6.19

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8

Attack vector

Local

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-23077.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-23077. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge