GHSA-6FH9-96WW-PVWQ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-08 15:31 – Updated: 2026-05-11 09:30
VLAI?
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mm/page_alloc: clear page->private in free_pages_prepare()

Several subsystems (slub, shmem, ttm, etc.) use page->private but don't clear it before freeing pages. When these pages are later allocated as high-order pages and split via split_page(), tail pages retain stale page->private values.

This causes a use-after-free in the swap subsystem. The swap code uses page->private to track swap count continuations, assuming freshly allocated pages have page->private == 0. When stale values are present, swap_count_continued() incorrectly assumes the continuation list is valid and iterates over uninitialized page->lru containing LIST_POISON values, causing a crash:

KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0xdead000000000100-0xdead000000000107] RIP: 0010:__do_sys_swapoff+0x1151/0x1860

Fix this by clearing page->private in free_pages_prepare(), ensuring all freed pages have clean state regardless of previous use.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-43303"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-416"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-05-08T14:16:37Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nmm/page_alloc: clear page-\u003eprivate in free_pages_prepare()\n\nSeveral subsystems (slub, shmem, ttm, etc.) use page-\u003eprivate but don\u0027t\nclear it before freeing pages.  When these pages are later allocated as\nhigh-order pages and split via split_page(), tail pages retain stale\npage-\u003eprivate values.\n\nThis causes a use-after-free in the swap subsystem.  The swap code uses\npage-\u003eprivate to track swap count continuations, assuming freshly\nallocated pages have page-\u003eprivate == 0.  When stale values are present,\nswap_count_continued() incorrectly assumes the continuation list is valid\nand iterates over uninitialized page-\u003elru containing LIST_POISON values,\ncausing a crash:\n\n  KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0xdead000000000100-0xdead000000000107]\n  RIP: 0010:__do_sys_swapoff+0x1151/0x1860\n\nFix this by clearing page-\u003eprivate in free_pages_prepare(), ensuring all\nfreed pages have clean state regardless of previous use.",
  "id": "GHSA-6fh9-96ww-pvwq",
  "modified": "2026-05-11T09:30:29Z",
  "published": "2026-05-08T15:31:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-43303"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/23b82b7a26182ad840ae67d390d7ec9771e8c00f"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ac1ea219590c09572ed5992dc233bbf7bb70fef9"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d757c793853ec5483eb41ec2942c300b8fa720fb"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…