CVE-2026-64181

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: fix __vm_normal_page() to handle missing support for pmd_special()/pud_special() On x86 32-bit with THP enabled, zap_huge_pmd() is seen to generate a "WARNING: mm/memory.c:735 at __vm_normal_page+0x6a/0x7d", from the VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(is_zero_pfn(pfn) || is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn)); followed by "BUG: Bad rss-counter state"s, then later "BUG: Bad page state"s when reclaim gets to call shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan(). It's as if the _PAGE_SPECIAL bit never got set in the huge_zero pmd: and indeed, whereas pte_special() and pte_mkspecial() are subject to a dedicated CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL, pmd_special() and pmd_mkspecial() are subject to CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PMD_PFNMAP, which is never enabled on any 32-bit architecture. While the problem was exposed through commit d80a9cb1a64a ("mm/huge_memory: add and use normal_or_softleaf_folio_pmd()"), it was an oversight in commit af38538801c6 ("mm/memory: factor out common code from vm_normal_page_*()") and would result in other problems: * huge zero folio accounted in smaps, pagemap (PAGE_IS_FILE) and numamaps as file-backed THP * folio_walk_start() returning the folio even without FW_ZEROPAGE set. Callers seem to tolerate that, though. ... and triggering the VM_WARN_ON_ONE(), although never reported so far. To fix it, teach vm_normal_page_pmd()/vm_normal_page_pud() to consider whether pmd_special/pud_special is actually implemented.

Predictions

Heuristic predictions, AS-IS, for prioritization only.

Mitigations

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/62153767e8fc3889bc6508e9ffe927aaf64c4334
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9052ea2ee2233be5d4786b8909151ca2bfbedf99
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c0c6ccd9828c3a1950623b546fa57292a77b5c73
• https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-64181.html