CVE-2026-74591: mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying
- Is it exploited?
Not on CISA's list. CISA has not added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog as of . If CISA adds it, this page shows it as known exploited.
- How likely is exploitation in the next 30 days?
- 0.6%
EPSS score, percentile 51 of all scored records. A probability estimated by FIRST, not a report of exploitation.
- How severe?
- 9.8 Critical
CVSS v3.1 base score, given by the CNA
- What should I do?
CISA has set no required action, because the vulnerability is not in KEV.
The CVE record links no vendor advisory, patch or mitigation.
- Which versions are affected?
Affected
- 6.15
Unaffected before 6.15; 6.18.45; 7.1.9; 7.2
Source: CISA KEV 2026.10.29, as of ; FIRST EPSS, as of ; CVE List, as of . About the data.
What to do
Advisories and patches
The CVE record links no vendor advisory, patch or mitigation.
This summary is based on the CVE record as of . Check the vendor's advisory before you act: affected versions and fixes can change.
Affected products and versions
As listed in the CVE record.
| Status | Versions |
|---|---|
| Affected | from 200a89c159a7 to before 4917e3ebcab5 |
| Affected | from 200a89c159a7 to before 267ecd2eb775 |
| Affected | from 200a89c159a7 to before 86da3f7e1e60 |
Versions not listed are: unaffected.
| Status | Versions |
|---|---|
| Affected | 6.15 |
| Unaffected | before 6.15 |
| Unaffected | 6.18.45 |
| Unaffected | 7.1.9 |
| Unaffected | 7.2 |
Versions not listed are: affected.
Versions the record lists as unaffected: 6.18.45, 7.1.9, 7.2.
Source: CVE List, as of . About the data.
About this vulnerability
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying In __filemap_add_folio()'s split-a-conflict loop, xas_set_order() is applied repeatedly: each application modifies xas.xa_index, rounding it down according to the split_order attempted at that stage: and if all goes as intended, it eventually (or immediately) conve…
Summary: CVE record, as of .
- CISA has not added CVE-2026-74591 to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, as of 29 Oct 2026.
- The CVE record was published on 22 Aug 2026.
- The CVE record carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (Critical), given by its CNA.
- FIRST's EPSS model puts the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days at 0.6% (percentile 51), as of 29 Oct 2026. EPSS is a statistical estimate, not a report of exploitation.
Source: CISA KEV 2026.10.29, as of ; CVE List, as of ; FIRST EPSS, as of . About the data.
Description
mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying In __filemap_add_folio()'s split-a-conflict loop, xas_set_order() is applied repeatedly: each application modifies xas.xa_index, rounding it down according to the split_order attempted at that stage: and if all goes as intended, it eventually (or immediately) converges on an xas_try_split() to the required folio_order, with xas.xa_index now the same as index: then xas_store() puts the new folio into the xarray there. But if a new node was needed, and GFP_NOWAIT allocation did not get one, the lock is dropped, xas_nomem() used to allocate, and sequence retried. If (that part of) the xarray is unchanged when the lock is reacquired, no problem. But what if the conflict was meanwhile resolved by another thread (perhaps even doing the same thing, inserting a folio at that same index)? Isn't there a danger of now putting our folio into the xarray at an intermediate rounded-down index? With !folio_contains() bug to follow, when CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y is checking for that. Fix this with an xas_set_order() to restore the original xas.xa_index at the bottom of the loop, so the retry does a full re-evaluation after reacquiring the lock, and cannot reach xas_store() with the wrong index. Production was suffering from rare SIGILLs and SIGSEGVs, executable text found a page away from where it belonged, !folio_contains() bug hit when debug enabled: symptoms not seen since this patch went in.
Source: CVE List, as of . About the data.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CVE record published | |
| CVE record last updated |
References
3
Known exploited Linux vulnerabilities
- CVE-2026-46300: Linux Kernel Missing Initialization of a Variable Vulnerability
- CVE-2025-39682: Linux Kernel Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions Vulnerability
- CVE-2025-39964: Linux Kernel Race Condition Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-53266: Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-53362: Linux Kernel Unspecified Vulnerability