data built 2026-10-19T13:16:53Z

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-93230 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-93230

mm/hugetlb: initialize gigantic bootmem hugepage struct pages earlier

EPSS 0.2%

Published 2026-09-24 (24 days ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem include/linux. Debian urgency: unimportant.

What to do, per Debian release

Debian's own status for CVE-2026-93230 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source

ReleaseStatus VersionWhat this means
Debian 12bookwormnot affected6.1.190-1Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code.
Debian 13trixievulnerable6.12.113-1No fix published anywhere yet, neither in Debian nor upstream for the series trixie tracks. Watch the Debian tracker page for this CVE. Advisories for trixie have historically landed a median of 11 days after publication.
Debian 14forkyfixed7.2.6-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.
Debian unstablesidfixed7.2.6-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.

The vulnerability

What the bug is

Gigantic bootmem HugeTLB pages are currently initialized from hugetlb_init(), but page_alloc_init_late() runs earlier and walks pageblocks to determine zone contiguity. If a bootmem HugeTLB region is marked noinit, set_zone_contiguous() can observe still-uninitialized struct pages through __pageblock_pfn_to_page(). This may not trigger an immediate failure, but it can make set_zone_contiguous() compute the wrong zone contiguity state. If extra poisoned-page checks are added in this path, such as PF_POISONED_CHECK() in page_zone_id(), it can also trigger an early boot panic. Initialize gigantic bootmem HugeTLB struct pages from page_alloc_init_late(), before zone contiguity is evaluated, so later page allocator setup only sees valid struct page state. This also makes the initialization order more natural, as struct pages should be initialized before later code inspects them.

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/hugetlb.h
mm/hugetlb.c
mm/mm_init.c
mm/sparse-vmemmap.c

What this is
HUGETLB SUBSYSTEMMAINTAINERS section matched on include/linux/hugetlb.h · linux-mm@kvack.org · Maintained

Check it on the machine

grep -w CONFIG_HUGETLBFS /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this, but not on every flavour. At least one release below builds the code on some of its kernel flavours and not on others, so the answer depends on the architecture and flavour installed.

  • bookwormYnot built on armhf/armmp, armhf/rt/armmp
  • trixieYnot built on armel/rpi, armhf/armmp, armhf/rt/armmp
  • forky, sidYnot built on armhf/armmp
Y
built in where it is built at all; some flavours do not build it
Build switch
CONFIG_HUGETLBFS

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 kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published
2026-09-24 (24 days ago)source
CVSS
no vector published, unrated
Attack vector
not published
EPSS
0.17%, higher than 5.5% 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

IntroducedFixed inCommit
6.76.18.5109505232eced
6.77.2.429968bc7aefb
6.77.3b1b7c045e808

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-93230, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.