Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-98818 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-98818
mm/slab: do not wake up kswapd in __kfree_rcu_sheaf()
Published 2026-10-18 (today) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem mm. Debian urgency: unimportant.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-98818 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
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | not affected | 6.1.190-1 | Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 13trixie | not affected | 6.12.113-1 | Nothing to do. trixie never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 7.2.10-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.10-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 7.2.10-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.10-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
Since kfree_rcu() can be called under pi_lock (a raw spinlock in the scheduler), kfree_rcu() itself should never allocate memory with __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM as waking up kswapd ends up acquiring pi_lock, which leads to a deadlock. Reproducing the issue even intentionally was not straightforward. The set_cpus_allowed_force() path that is called under pi_lock is exercised very rarely, and competing tasks that allocate memory will most likely wake kswapd up. Therefore the existence of the deadlock was verified with a modified kernel that has a lockdep map for waking up kswapd: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 7.2.0-rc1-slab-for-next+ #10 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ git/6660 is trying to acquire lock: ffff8e524533c550 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x12/0x20 but task is already holding lock: ffff8e57bffff1a0 (&pgdat->kswapd_wait){....}-{3:3}, at: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x12/0x20 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&pgdat->kswapd_wait){....}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x5a4/0xc50 lock_acquire.part.0+0xb7/0x240 lock_acquire+0x70/0x170 __raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x44/0x80 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x12/0x20 __wake_up_common_lock+0x31/0xa0 __wake_up+0x20/0x40 kswapd_wakeup_wake+0x7e/0x110 wakeup_kswapd+0x295/0x320 wake_all_kswapds+0xac/0x1a0 __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x282/0xf80 __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x32a/0x360 alloc_slab_page+0x2e/0x160 allocate_slab+0x82/0x420 new_slab+0x52/0xb0 refill_objects+0x13d/0x190 refill_sheaf+0x5d/0xd0 __pcs_replace_empty_main+0x230/0xb10 [...] -> #1 (kswapd_wakeup){-.-.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x5a4/0xc50 lock_sync.part.0+0x75/0x100 lock_sync+0x36/0x70 might_wakeup_kswapd+0x61/0xa0 __kfree_rcu_sheaf+0x33/0xd90 kvfree_call_rcu+0x1d4/0x3b0 set_cpus_allowed_force+0x163/0x220 cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback+0x18b/0x240 select_fallback_rq+0x1e6/0x250 [...] -> #0 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}-{2:2}: check_prev_add+0xe6/0xe00 validate_chain+0x51e/0x6e0 __lock_acquire+0x5a4/0xc50 lock_acquire.part.0+0xb7/0x240 lock_acquire+0x70/0x170 __raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x44/0x80 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x12/0x20 try_to_wake_up+0x77/0xa90 default_wake_function+0x27/0x60 autoremove_wake_function+0x23/0xb0 __wake_up_common+0xb8/0x170 __wake_up_common_lock+0x51/0xa0 __wake_up+0x20/0x40 kswapd_wakeup_wake+0x7e/0x110 wakeup_kswapd+0x295/0x320 wake_all_kswapds+0xac/0x1a0 __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x282/0xf80 __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x32a/0x360 alloc_slab_page+0x2e/0x160 allocate_slab+0x82/0x420 new_slab+0x52/0xb0 refill_objects+0x13d/0x190 refill_sheaf+0x5d/0xd0 __pcs_replace_empty_main+0x230/0xb10 [...] other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &p->pi_lock --> kswapd_wakeup --> &pgdat->kswapd_wait Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&pgdat->kswapd_wait); lock(kswapd_wakeup); lock(&pgdat->kswapd_wait); lock(&p->pi_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by git/6660: #0: ffff8e519f0e9e20 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#6){++++}-{4:4}, at: lookup_slow+0x2d/0x60 #1: ffffffff8a31c460 (kswapd_wakeup){-.-.}- ---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/slub.c
- What this is
- SLAB ALLOCATORMAINTAINERS section matched on mm/slub.c · linux-mm@kvack.org · Maintained
Check it on the machine
grep -w CONFIG_SLUB /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 code. Every release below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships.
- bookworm, trixie, forky, sidy
- y
- built into the kernel image on every flavour - only a patch removes it
- Build switch
- CONFIG_SLUB
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
- 2026-10-18 (today)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- not scored
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- unimportantsource
- Subsystem
- mm
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 6.18 | 7.2.10 | 46545c86b54f |
| 6.18 | 7.3 | af2fb3ee6679 |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-98818, 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.