dbcve.org
Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2026-64181

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Developing Published 2026-07-19
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 6.18.34 / 7.0.11 or later.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
Zero-click 4 weeks old

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 · unedited
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.

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 · low confidence
Developing — this CVE was published recently and its authoritative NVD entry is still being established, so we're holding a technical summary until the source data settles rather than publish something unreliable. Re-checking after 2026-08-02.

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
Affected:>= 6.18, < 6.18.34>= 6.19, < 7.0.11= 7.1

CVSS 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
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to 6.18.34 / 7.0.11 or later
Fixed in 6.18.347.0.11
We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $1,950. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-64181 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-64181 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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