HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 93197 memcg move lru size accounting on reparenting
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Unknown severity · Source severity not reportedCVE-2026-93197

memcg: move LRU size accounting on reparenting instead of copying itCVE-2026-93197

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-93197 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in memcg: move LRU size accounting on reparenting instead of copying it. 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.

Published Sep 17, 2026Updated Oct 19, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Sep 17, 2026Material review Oct 19, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Unknown severitySource severity not reported
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

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.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
Linux/Linuxgeneric>=07a6e9a2c199fed361f528781284d56771d0016f <007bc1842317bb99f5f6205afede940f951674c2 || >=07a6e9a2c199fed361f528781284d56771d0016f <0e0ac326c511d514817cc7b6d7741afd59098ce2007bc1842317bb99f5f6205afede940f951674c2, 0e0ac326c511d514817cc7b6d7741afd59098ce2
Linux/Linuxgeneric7.1Not reported

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for Linux/Linux, Linux/Linux.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update Linux/Linux to 007bc1842317bb99f5f6205afede940f951674c2 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Sep 17, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 19, 2026

    Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Sep 17, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
  • Source referencegit.kernel.org
Upstream source description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memcg: move LRU size accounting on reparenting instead of copying it When a memory cgroup is offlined its LRU folios are reparented to the parent. lruvec_reparent_lru() splices the child's lists into the parent's and credits the parent with the child's per-zone lru_zone_size[], but never clears the child's copy, so the size is copied rather than moved. lru_gen_reparent_memcg() does the same for MGLRU. The parent is left correct, credited with exactly the folios it took over. The stale value sits on the child and nothing will correct it: folio->memcg_data now resolves to the parent, so every later update_lru_size() for those folios goes there. Dying cgroups are not freed immediately and mem_cgroup_iter() still walks them, so shrink_lruvec() keeps being called on them. get_scan_count() reads the phantom counter through lruvec_lru_size() and the scan loop then grinds through nr[] in SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX steps against an empty list, for as long as the dead cgroup lives. Under MGLRU the MGLRU scanner runs instead, but count_shadow_nodes() sums all of NR_LRU_LISTS through lruvec_lru_size() and over-budgets the shadow node limit just the same. On one 251 GiB host a sweep of every mz->lru_zone_size[] found 380 counters describing folios on no list at all: 124777314 pages, 476 GiB, 1.89x the machine's RAM, across 57 cgroups. All were on memcgs with CSS_DYING set and CSS_ONLINE clear, and parent/child pairs reported byte-identical sizes. LRU_UNEVICTABLE needs its size moved too. Its list is deliberately not spliced because lruvec_init() poisons the head - the unevictable LRU is imaginary and folios are never threaded on it - but the size is kept by lruvec_add_folio()/lruvec_del_folio() and those folios account to the parent from here on. This depends on commit bf4ade7dbd76 ("memcg: keep folio's objcg same as its node") and must not be backported ahead of it. Without that invariant a folio's objcg can belong to another node, so a folio already spliced onto the parent's list can still resolve to the child's lruvec until the objcg's node is reparented in a later iteration of memcg_reparent_objcgs(); clearing the child's counter early then lets lruvec_del_folio() underflow it and trip the WARN_ONCE()/VM_BUG_ON() in mem_cgroup_update_lru_size().

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
Vulnerability
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
Not reported
Source
CVE List V5
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
2 linked sources
Open source record