CVE-2026-89985

CVE CVE-2026-89985EUVD EUVD-2026-80593Published 2026-09-16T10:33:00.000ZLast changed 2026-09-16T14:41:01.000ZCVSS 7.8

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memcg: keep folio's objcg same as its node memcg_reparent_objcgs() has an inherent assumption that a folio's objcg is the objcg of the folio's node. Folio migration across nodes breaks that assumption: the new folio simply inherits the old folio's objcg while living on a different node. Once the assumption is broken, the reparenting of the folio's objcg and the reparenting of the folio's LRU list are no longer atomic. memcg_reparent_objcgs() handles one node per iteration and drops all the locks in between, so the objcg gets reparented in the iteration for the objcg's node while the LRU list gets spliced in the iteration for the folio's node. Any LRU operation on that folio in between resolves its lruvec through the objcg, and thus takes the lru_lock of the wrong memcg, not the lru_lock of the list the folio is actually on. Fix this by selecting the objcg by folio_nid() at charge time, and by re-deriving it for the destination node in mem_cgroup_migrate() and mem_cgroup_replace_folio().

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 7.1; patch: 7.2.5; f1cf8d2f36dc369688bbe61ce064fbd829dbc9e1 <bf4ade7dbd76d4ec8697840e4ebb15ed77c5ec26; patch: 0; f1cf8d2f36dc369688bbe61ce064fbd829dbc9e1 <6165478eaa3094eaee1d5e33b12520064faf043d; patch: 7.3-rc1

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.