Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2007-6417
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe shmem_getpage function (mm/shmem.c) in Linux kernel 2.6.11 through 2.6.23 does not properly clear allocated memory in some rare circumstances related to tmpfs, which might allow local users to read sensitive kernel data or cause a denial of service (crash).
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe shmem_getpage function in Linux kernel 2.6.11 through 2.6.23 fails to properly clear allocated memory in rare circumstances when handling tmpfs (shared memory filesystem) operations. This memory disclosure vulnerability could allow local users to read sensitive kernel data from uninitialized memory pages or cause a kernel crash (denial of service).
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Linux KernelOperating system
= 2.6.11= 2.6.12= 2.6.13= 2.6.14= 2.6.15= 2.6.16= 2.6.17= 2.6.18= 2.6.19= 2.6.20= 2.6.21= 2.6.22CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check the running kernel versionRun `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version` to obtain the installed kernel versionAffected if The version falls within 2.6.11 through 2.6.23 (inclusive)
-
Verify if tmpfs is compiled into the kernelCheck `/proc/filesystems` for 'tmpfs' entry, or run `lsmod | grep tmpfs` if tmpfs is loadable, or look for 'tmpfs' in `/proc/config.gz` (if available) under CONFIG_TMPFSAffected if tmpfs support is enabled in the kernel (the vulnerability only applies when tmpfs is available)
-
Identify active tmpfs mountsRun `mount | grep tmpfs` to list all currently mounted tmpfs filesystemsAffected if Any tmpfs filesystems are mounted and actively used (the vulnerability triggers during tmpfs page allocation operations)
-
Check for processes using tmpfs-based shared memoryRun `ipcs -m` to list shared memory segments; check if any segments are on tmpfs (typically shown with path '/dev/shm' or similar tmpfs mounts)Affected if Processes are utilizing tmpfs-backed shared memory segments
You are affected if your kernel version is between 2.6.11 and 2.6.23 inclusive AND tmpfs is enabled and in use on your system, as the flaw resides in the shmem_getpage function handling tmpfs operations.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade the Linux kernel to version 2.6.24 or later, which contains the fix for proper memory clearing in shmem_getpage. Alternatively, apply the upstream kernel patch that ensures allocated tmpfs pages are zeroed before use.
Fix this in Linux Kernel
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-6417 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-6417 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data