Answer in brief
CVE-2026-74591 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in mm/filemap: __filemap_add_folio() restore index before retrying. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=200a89c159a7a416115e6e309183c82183bf98aa <4917e3ebcab50f0265e8ca01c8567de4c4a47511 || >=200a89c159a7a416115e6e309183c82183bf98aa <267ecd2eb7759c26f1a026eb0a5b231071534c9c || >=200a89c159a7a416115e6e309183c82183bf98aa <86da3f7e1e609e1e8bfbab198af68467c5a015a5 | 4917e3ebcab50f0265e8ca01c8567de4c4a47511, 267ecd2eb7759c26f1a026eb0a5b231071534c9c, 86da3f7e1e609e1e8bfbab198af68467c5a015a5 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 6.15 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Aug 22, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 22, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 22, 2026
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.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.