CVE-2026-89758
What it is
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/mempolicy: skip non-present PMDs when queueing folios Patch series "mm: handle device-private PMDs in walk callbacks", v3. Since commit 368076f52ebe ("mm/huge_memory: add device-private THP support to PMD operations") a PMD may hold a device-private swap entry whenever an HMM-based GPU driver migrates an anonymous THP folio to device memory via migrate_vma_pages(). pmd_trans_huge_lock() succeeds for such PMDs (pmd_is_huge() returns true for any non-present, non-none huge PMD), so several MM walk callbacks that used to assume present THP or migration entry are now reachable with a device-private PMD. The results range from a VM_BUG_ON() firing on debug kernels, to an oops on a bogus vmemmap dereference, to silently isolating an unrelated live folio from LRU in the aliasing case. This patch (of 3): queue_folios_pmd() is called under pmd_trans_huge_lock(), whose pmd_is_huge() check returns true for any non-present, non-none PMD softleaf. Passing such a PMD to pmd_folio() treats the softleaf encoding as a hardware PFN and can return a bogus folio pointer. Mirror queue_folios_pte_range(): handle non-present entries before looking up a folio. Keep migration entries counted as failures, but skip other non-present PMDs such as device-private entries. Potential trigger: an HMM-based GPU driver migrates an anonymous THP folio to device memory via migrate_vma_pages(), leaving a device-private PMD. Userspace then calls mbind(), migrate_pages() or set_mempolicy_home_node() on that range.
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
- No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- 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: none linked yet, which raises it.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Record status
- Received
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
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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-2026-89758.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-89758. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
