CVE-2026-64295

What the bug is

The page_ext iteration API does not validate if the PFN still belongs to a valid section while advancing the iterator. When dynamically adding memory in the hotplug path, it can lead to a NULL pointer dereference during page_ext_lookup at the boundary of the last valid section when iterator count equals __pgcount. The for_each_page_ext() macro calls page_ext_iter_next() as its loop increment. for_each_page_ext() does a "__page_ext = page_ext_iter_next(&__iter)" at the end. This causes page_ext_iter_next() to increment iter->index past __pgcount and call page_ext_lookup(start_pfn + __pgcount). During memory hotplug (online), the PFN at start_pfn + __pgcount may belong to a section that has not yet been initialized, causing page_ext_lookup() to trigger a NULL pointer dereference. [ 14.555124][ T846] Call trace: [ 14.555125][ T846] lookup_page_ext+0x6c/0x108 (P) [ 14.555127][ T846] page_ext_lookup+0x30/0x3c [ 14.555129][ T846] __reset_page_owner+0x11c/0x260 [ 14.571201][ T846] __free_pages_ok+0x5e8/0x8e0 [ 14.571204][ T846] __free_pages_core+0x78/0xf0 [ 14.571206][ T846] generic_online_page+0x14/0x24 [ 14.597782][ T846] online_pages+0x178/0x30c [ 14.597784][ T846] memory_block_change_state+0x284/0x32c [ 14.597787][ T846] memory_subsys_online+0x4c/0x64 [ 14.597789][ T846] device_online+0x88/0xb0 [ 14.597791][ T846] online_memory_block+0x30/0x40 [ 14.597793][ T846] walk_memory_blocks+0xac/0xe8 [ 14.597794][ T846] add_memory_resource+0x280/0x298 [ 14.656161][ T846] add_memory+0x60/0x98 Move the iteration boundary enforcement inside the iterator functions, so callers cannot inadvertently access beyond the requested range.

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.

include/linux/page_ext.h

What this is

THE RESTMAINTAINERS section matched on */ · linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org · Buried alive in reporters

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

2026-07-25 (3 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.16%, higher than 4.5% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

unimportantsource

Subsystem

include/linux

Upstream fixes

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

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
6.15	6.18.39	8dcaa0f87a88
6.15	7.1.4	377b1cd6bbcf
6.15	7.2	ffd017237cfe