Vulnerability record · CVE-2026-64181 · published 19 July 2026
CVE-2026-64181: Linux kernel vulnerability
Linux · Linux Kernel
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.
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.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Affected products
1 vulnerable configurations from NVD's CPE data, grouped by vendor and product.
References
Track CVE-2026-64181 inside VULONE
Watch it alongside the ransomware crews, C2 infrastructure and forum chatter that reference it, query it through the API and pull it into your SIEM over TAXII.
Related vulnerabilities
Same products first, then exploited flaws of the same weakness class.
Source: NIST National Vulnerability Database (record CVE-2026-64181), CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS (scores of 2026-09-26). This page is refreshed as NVD updates the record.
