CVE-2026-64130

CVE CVE-2026-64130EUVD EUVD-2026-45815Published 2026-07-19T15:40:26.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/page_alloc: fix initialization of tags of the huge zero folio with init_on_free __GFP_ZEROTAGS semantics are currently a bit weird, but effectively this flag is only ever set alongside __GFP_ZERO and __GFP_SKIP_KASAN. If we run with init_on_free, we will zero out pages during __free_pages_prepare(), to skip zeroing on the allocation path. However, when allocating with __GFP_ZEROTAG set, post_alloc_hook() will consequently not only skip clearing page content, but also skip clearing tag memory. Not clearing tags through __GFP_ZEROTAGS is irrelevant for most pages that will get mapped to user space through set_pte_at() later: set_pte_at() and friends will detect that the tags have not been initialized yet (PG_mte_tagged not set), and initialize them. However, for the huge zero folio, which will be mapped through a PMD marked as special, this initialization will not be performed, ending up exposing whatever tags were still set for the pages. The docs (Documentation/arch/arm64/memory-tagging-extension.rst) state that allocation tags are set to 0 when a page is first mapped to user space. That no longer holds with the huge zero folio when init_on_free is enabled. Fix it by decoupling __GFP_ZEROTAGS from __GFP_ZERO, passing to tag_clear_highpages() whether we want to also clear page content. Invert the meaning of the tag_clear_highpages() return value to have clearer semantics. Reproduced with the huge zero folio by modifying the check_buffer_fill arm64/mte selftest to use a 2 MiB area, after making sure that pages have a non-0 tag set when freeing (note that, during boot, we will not actually initialize tags, but only set KASAN_TAG_KERNEL in the page flags). $ ./check_buffer_fill 1..20 ... not ok 17 Check initial tags with private mapping, sync error mode and mmap memory not ok 18 Check initial tags with private mapping, sync error mode and mmap/mprotect memory ... This code needs more cleanups; we'll tackle that next, like decoupling __GFP_ZEROTAGS from __GFP_SKIP_KASAN. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: s/__GPF_ZERO/__GFP_ZERO/, per David]

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

• Linux — Linux patch: 7.0.11; 6.18; adfb6609c6809e107ded9a1cd46f519c882e64ea <6a288a4ddb4a994490505ab5f41c445f8e6b6467; patch: 0; adfb6609c6809e107ded9a1cd46f519c882e64ea <738d18f1da3513d17b6f7bf30146cc4ac2480ffd; patch: 6.18.34; patch: 7.1; adfb6609c6809e107ded9a1cd46f519c882e64ea <2f2aec5120b93a8f8b52dc50cdc60dbb8aec72f6

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

• Linux — Linux

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.