Skip to main content

Threats Tagged 'ubuntu-cve-2026-74591'

View all threats tagged with 'ubuntu-cve-2026-74591'. Filter and sort to focus on specific types of threats.

Pro Console Lifetime

Stop chasing alerts. Route them.

Start free, then upgrade once to turn Radar into an automated delivery engine for your security stack.

Custom feeds / Automations: email, Slack, webhooks, SIEM/MISP / API access (baseline limits)

View Plans & Pricing

API access activates after upgrading in Console -> Billing.

Breach by OffSeqOFFSEQFRIENDS — 25% OFF

Check if your credentials are on the dark web

Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.

Scan now

Filter Threats

Narrow down the results by type, severity, or affected countries

Search threats by title, CVE ID, or description. Maximum 100 characters.
Active filters (1):Tag: ubuntu-cve-2026-74591

Threats Tagged 'ubuntu-cve-2026-74591'

Click on any threat for detailed analysis and mitigation recommendations

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.

Join the discussion

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 result

Filters:Tag: ubuntu-cve-2026-74591
Page 1 of 1
OffSeq TrainingCredly Certified

Lead Pen Test Professional

Technical5-day eLearningPECB Accredited
View courses