CVE-2026-64131

What the bug is

Device private and exclusive entries are only supported for anonymous folios. This condition is tested in __migrate_device_pages() and make_device_exclusive() using folio_test_anon(). However the unmap path tests this assumption using vma_is_anonymous(). This is wrong because whilst anonymous VMAs can only contain folios where folio_test_anon() is true the opposite relation does not hold. A folio for which folio_test_anon() is true does not imply vma_is_anonymous() is true. Such a condition can occur if for example a folio is part of a private filebacked mapping. In this case vma_is_anonymous() is false as the mapping is filebacked, but folio_test_anon() may be true, thus permitting devices to migrate the folio to device private memory. This can lead to the following spurious warnings during process teardown: [ 772.737706] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 772.739201] WARNING: mm/memory.c:1754 at unmap_page_range.cold+0x26/0x18a, CPU#17: hmm-tests/2041 [ 772.742050] Modules linked in: test_hmm nvidia_uvm(O) nvidia(O) [ 772.743959] CPU: 17 UID: 0 PID: 2041 Comm: hmm-tests Tainted: G W O 7.0.0+ #387 PREEMPT(full) [ 772.747104] Tainted: [W]=WARN, [O]=OOT_MODULE [ 772.748509] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.17.0-0-gb52ca86e094d-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 772.752117] RIP: 0010:unmap_page_range.cold+0x26/0x18a [ 772.753780] Code: 7e fe ff ff 48 89 4c 24 78 4c 89 44 24 38 e8 f2 ff b1 00 48 8b 4c 24 78 4c 8b 44 24 38 48 8b 44 24 18 48 83 78 48 00 74 04 90 <0f> 0b 90 48 89 ca b8 ff ff 37 00 48 c1 ea 03 48 c1 e0 2a 80 3c 02 [ 772.759602] RSP: 0018:ffff888112607550 EFLAGS: 00010286 [ 772.761310] RAX: ffff88811bbf4dc0 RBX: dffffc0000000000 RCX: ffffea03e9bfffd8 [ 772.763583] RDX: 1ffff1102377e9c1 RSI: 0000000000000008 RDI: ffff88811bbf4e08 [ 772.765914] RBP: 0000000000000006 R08: ffff8881059f7448 R09: ffffed10224c0e68 [ 772.768184] R10: ffff888112607347 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000001 [ 772.770461] R13: ffffea03e9bfffc0 R14: ffff888112607908 R15: ffffea03e9bfffc0 [ 772.772782] FS: 00007f327caa2780(0000) GS:ffff888427b7d000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 772.775328] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 772.777187] CR2: 00007f327ca89000 CR3: 00000001994d5000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 [ 772.779135] Call Trace: [ 772.779792] <TASK> [ 772.780317] ? dmirror_interval_invalidate+0x1a3/0x290 [test_hmm] [ 772.781873] ? vm_normal_page_pud+0x2b0/0x2b0 [ 772.782992] ? __rwlock_init+0x150/0x150 [ 772.784006] ? lock_release+0x216/0x2b0 [ 772.785008] ? __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x505/0x6e0 [ 772.786522] ? lock_release+0x216/0x2b0 [ 772.787498] ? unmap_single_vma+0xb6/0x210 [ 772.788573] unmap_vmas+0x27d/0x520 [ 772.789506] ? unmap_single_vma+0x210/0x210 [ 772.790607] ? mas_update_gap.part.0+0x620/0x620 [ 772.791834] unmap_region+0x19e/0x350 [ 772.792769] ? remove_vma+0x130/0x130 [ 772.793684] ? mas_alloc_nodes+0x1f2/0x300 [ 772.794730] vms_complete_munmap_vmas+0x8c1/0xe20 [ 772.795926] ? unmap_region+0x350/0x350 [ 772.796917] do_vmi_align_munmap+0x36a/0x4e0 [ 772.798018] ? lock_release+0x216/0x2b0 [ 772.799024] ? vma_shrink+0x620/0x620 [ 772.799983] do_vmi_munmap+0x150/0x2c0 [ 772.800939] __vm_munmap+0x161/0x2c0 [ 772.801872] ? expand_downwards+0xd60/0xd60 [ 772.802948] ? clockevents_program_event+0x1ef/0x540 [ 772.804217] ? lock_release+0x216/0x2b0 [ 772.805158] __x64_sys_munmap+0x59/0x80 [ 772.805776] do_syscall_64+0xfc/0x670 [ 772.806336] ? irqentry_exit+0xda/0x580 [ 772.806976] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 [ 772.807772] RIP: 0033:0x7f327cbb2717 [ 772.808323] Code: 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d f9 76 0d 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 83 c8 ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 b8 0b 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ---truncated---

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

mm/memory.c
tools/testing/selftests/mm/hmm-tests.c

What this is

MEMORY MANAGEMENT - COREMAINTAINERS section matched on mm/memory.c · linux-mm@kvack.org · Maintained

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Not established. This site could not find the build rule for the affected file in the kernel trees Debian ships, so it has no answer about whether Debian compiles this code. Read that as unknown, never as absent.

• bookworm, trixie, forky, sid?

?

not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file

Where a release above reads "not established", no build rule for the affected file was found in that release's kernel tree. That is a gap in this lookup, not a finding that the code is absent.

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS

Signals

Published

2026-07-19 (3 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.12%, higher than 1.8% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

not yet assignedsource

Subsystem

mm

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
5.19	6.1.176	e81446b559db
5.19	6.6.143	e7af1b15c884
5.19	6.12.93	a825691b804b
5.19	6.18.34	2fff0cdd9422
5.19	7.0.11	52f72b3f8f6f
5.19	7.1	be3f38d05cc5