CVE-2026-23100Disclosure(linux / linux_kernel)

LOWCVSS 5.5 · MEDIUM

Signal is active with 1 mentions in latest observed window

Immediate actions

  • Track advisory updates for patch or workaround availability

Recommended action window: Monitor and triage in normal cycle

NVD description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb_pmd_shared() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: fixes for PMD table sharing (incl. using mmu_gather)", v3. One functional fix, one performance regression fix, and two related comment fixes. I cleaned up my prototype I recently shared [1] for the performance fix, deferring most of the cleanups I had in the prototype to a later point. While doing that I identified the other things. The goal of this patch set is to be backported to stable trees "fairly" easily. At least patch #1 and #4. Patch #1 fixes hugetlb_pmd_shared() not detecting any sharing Patch #2 + #3 are simple comment fixes that patch #4 interacts with. Patch #4 is a fix for the reported performance regression due to excessive IPI broadcasts during fork()+exit(). The last patch is all about TLB flushes, IPIs and mmu_gather. Read: complicated There are plenty of cleanups in the future to be had + one reasonable optimization on x86. But that's all out of scope for this series. Runtime tested, with a focus on fixing the performance regression using the original reproducer [2] on x86. This patch (of 4): We switched from (wrongly) using the page count to an independent shared count. Now, shared page tables have a refcount of 1 (excluding speculative references) and instead use ptdesc->pt_share_count to identify sharing. We didn't convert hugetlb_pmd_shared(), so right now, we would never detect a shared PMD table as such, because sharing/unsharing no longer touches the refcount of a PMD table. Page migration, like mbind() or migrate_pages() would allow for migrating folios mapped into such shared PMD tables, even though the folios are not exclusive. In smaps we would account them as "private" although they are "shared", and we would be wrongly setting the PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE in the pagemap interface. Fix it by properly using ptdesc_pmd_is_shared() in hugetlb_pmd_shared().

0.0/ 10 priority

Sources & remediation

Priority

LOW

Exploitation

NONE

PoC

NONE

Patch

AVAILABLE

Momentum

NONE

Are you affected?

If you run products in this scope, you should treat this CVE as relevant to your environment.

  • linux_kernel

Threat summary

  • 1 mentions across 1 observed day

What's happening

  • Technical details provided in 1 signal
  • Disclosure: 1 classified signal
  • 1 total mentions across 1 day

Affected systems

Vendors
Products
linux_kernel

2 versions affected across 1 product

Deep dive

Activity timeline1 mentions / 1d
00111Mentions · 2026-02-05: 1Technical Details · 2026-02-05: 102-05
Signal classification1 categories
Disclosure
1100.0%
Referenced assets1 URL
By indicator
Full discourse1 post
  • Vulmon Vulnerability Feed@VulmonFeeds
    Disclosure

    CVE-2026-23100 Shared PMD Table Detection Failure in Linux Kernel Hugetlb Subsystem https://vulmon.com/vulnerabilitydetails?qid=CVE-2026-23100

    Post summary

    The text announces CVE‑2026‑23100, describing a shared PMD table detection failure in the Linux kernel hugetlb subsystem, and links to a vulnerability detail page, but offers no PoC, exploit, patch, or evidence of active exploitation.

    0000061
    4.0K followersView on X
CPE platform detail10 entries

10 of 10 entries

PartVendorProductVersionTarget SWTarget HW
OSlinuxlinux_kernel---
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.13--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.13--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.13--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.19--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.19--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.19--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.19--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.19--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel6.19--

Explore more