VulnerabilityPublished 14 Feb 2026Updated 31 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-23177: Linux kernel · mm, shmem: prevent infinite loop on truncate race

Affects Linux kernelSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

Severity

Medium

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntu 25.10linux`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.14.0-15.15 – 6.17.0-40.40 20 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10linux-aws`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-aws?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.14.0-1005.5 – 6.17.0-1019.19 17 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10linux-azure`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.14.0-1004.4 – 6.17.0-1020.20 16 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10linux-azure-fde`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-azure-fde?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.17.0-1003.3 – 6.17.0-1017.17 10 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10linux-gcp`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-gcp?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.14.0-1006.6 – 6.17.0-1020.22 17 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 25.10linux-oracle`pkg:deb/ubuntu/linux-oracle?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 6.14.0-1005.5 – 6.17.0-1018.18 16 affected builds	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm, shmem: prevent infinite loop on truncate race When truncating a large swap entry, shmem_free_swap() returns 0 when the entry's index doesn't match the given index due to lookup alignment. The failure fallback path checks if the entry crosses the end border and aborts when it happens, so truncate won't erase an unexpected entry or range. But one scenario was ignored. When `index` points to the middle of a large swap entry, and the large swap entry doesn't go across the end border, find_get_entries() will return that large swap entry as the first item in the batch with `indices[0]` equal to `index`. The entry's base index will be smaller than `indices[0]`, so shmem_free_swap() will fail and return 0 due to the "base < index" check. The code will then call shmem_confirm_swap(), get the order, check if it crosses the END boundary (which it doesn't), and retry with the same index. The next iteration will find the same entry again at the same index with same indices, leading to an infinite loop. Fix this by retrying with a round-down index, and abort if the index is smaller than the truncate range.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…