CVE-20XX-?
agent?

CVE-2026-23100

5.5 MEDIUM 0.1% exploit odds Fix listed Other OS & kernel

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb_pmd_shared() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: fixes for PMD table sharing (incl. using mmu_gather)", v3. One functional fix, one performance regression fix, and two related comment fixes. I cleaned up my prototype I recently shared [1] for the performance fix, deferring most of the cleanups I had in the prototype to a later point. While doing that I identified the other things. The goal of this patch set is to be backported to stable trees "fairly" easily. At least patch #1 and #4. Patch #1 fixes hugetlb_pmd_shared() not detecting any sharing Patch #2 + #3 are simple comment fixes that patch #4 interacts with. Patch #4 is a fix for the reported performance regression due to excessive IPI broadcasts during fork()+exit(). The last patch is all about TLB flushes, IPIs and mmu_gather. Read: complicated There are plenty of cleanups in the future to be had + one reasonable optimization on x86. But that's all out of scope for this series. Runtime tested, with a focus on fixing the performance regression using the original reproducer [2] on x86. This patch (of 4): We switched from (wrongly) using the page count to an independent shared count. Now, shared page tables have a refcount of 1 (excluding speculative references) and instead use ptdesc->pt_share_count to identify sharing. We didn't convert hugetlb_pmd_shared(), so right now, we would never detect a shared PMD table as such, because sharing/unsharing no longer touches the refcount of a PMD table. Page migration, like mbind() or migrate_pages() would allow for migrating folios mapped into such shared PMD tables, even though the folios are not exclusive. In smaps we would account them as "private" although they are "shared", and we would be wrongly setting the PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE in the pagemap interface. Fix it by properly using ptdesc_pmd_is_shared() in hugetlb_pmd_shared().

At a glance

Exploitability
Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of service disruption.
Exploit odds
0.1% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
Fix
A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

  1. PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
  2. Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

Details

Published
Last modified
Exploit probability
0.1% · EPSS, next 30 days
Record status
Modified

Affected

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 5.5

Attack vector
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High
Raw vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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-2026-23100.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-23100. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

· More options · Status badge

Meme: I wake up, CVE-2026-23100
Download Square Reddit

Fix and advisories

References

NVD record · CVE.org record