<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2026 17:42:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>bdu:2026-04548</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-04548</link>
      <description>bdu:2026-04548</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2026-04548</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BELL-CVE-2024-40950</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2024-40950</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2024-40950</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EUVD-2026-312958</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-312958</link>
      <description>EUVD-2026-312958</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-312958</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>fkie_cve-2024-40950</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2024-40950</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING &amp;#34;[ 5059.122759][ T166]
Cannot split file folio to non-0 order&amp;#34; was triggered.  But the test cases
are only for anonmous folios.  while mapping_large_folio_support() is only
reasonable for page cache folios.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to
mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio.  The folio_test_anon()
check is missing.  So the split of the anonmous THP is failed.  This is
also the same for shmem_mapping().  We&amp;#39;d better add a check for both.  But
the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for
anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index &amp;gt;= end)
is always false.  shmem_mapping() is not called.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon
mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn&amp;#39;t
support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is
enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to
THP.  But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios
properly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch,
large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING &amp;#34;[ 5059.122759][ T166]
Cannot split file folio to non-0 order&amp;#34; was triggered.  But the test cases
are only for anonmous folios.  while mapping_large_folio_support() is only
reasonable for page cache folios.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to
mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio.  The folio_test_anon()
check is missing.  So the split of the anonmous THP is failed.  This is
also the same for shmem_mapping().  We&amp;#39;d better add a check for both.  But
the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for
anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index &amp;gt;= end)
is always false.  shmem_mapping() is not called.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon
mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn&amp;#39;t
support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is
enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to
THP.  But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios
properly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch,
large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2024-40950</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GHSA-qvp3-ffc6-xf43</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-qvp3-ffc6-xf43</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING &amp;#34;[ 5059.122759][ T166]
Cannot split file folio to non-0 order&amp;#34; was triggered.  But the test cases
are only for anonmous folios.  while mapping_large_folio_support() is only
reasonable for page cache folios.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to
mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio.  The folio_test_anon()
check is missing.  So the split of the anonmous THP is failed.  This is
also the same for shmem_mapping().  We&amp;#39;d better add a check for both.  But
the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for
anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index &amp;gt;= end)
is always false.  shmem_mapping() is not called.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon
mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn&amp;#39;t
support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is
enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to
THP.  But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios
properly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch,
large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING &amp;#34;[ 5059.122759][ T166]
Cannot split file folio to non-0 order&amp;#34; was triggered.  But the test cases
are only for anonmous folios.  while mapping_large_folio_support() is only
reasonable for page cache folios.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to
mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio.  The folio_test_anon()
check is missing.  So the split of the anonmous THP is failed.  This is
also the same for shmem_mapping().  We&amp;#39;d better add a check for both.  But
the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for
anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index &amp;gt;= end)
is always false.  shmem_mapping() is not called.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon
mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn&amp;#39;t
support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is
enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to
THP.  But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios
properly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch,
large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-qvp3-ffc6-xf43</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OESA-2024-2076 — kernel security update</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2024-2076</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; openEuler:24.03-LTS: kernel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself.&#13;
&#13;
Security Fix(es):&#13;
&#13;
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&#13;
&#13;
ipvlan: Dont Use skb-&amp;amp;gt;sk in ipvlan_process_v{4,6}_outbound&#13;
&#13;
Raw packet from PF_PACKET socket ontop of an IPv6-backed ipvlan device will
hit WARN_ON_ONCE() in sk_mc_loop() through sch_direct_xmit() path.&#13;
&#13;
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at net/core/sock.c:775 sk_mc_loop+0x2d/0x70
Modules linked in: sch_netem ipvlan rfkill cirrus drm_shmem_helper sg drm_kms_helper
CPU: 2 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/2 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0+ #279
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:sk_mc_loop+0x2d/0x70
Code: fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 65 0f b7 15 f7 96 a3 4f 31 c0 66 85 d2 75 26 48 85 ff 74 1c
RSP: 0018:ffffa9584015cd78 EFLAGS: 00010212
RAX: 0000000000000011 RBX: ffff91e585793e00 RCX: 0000000002c6a001
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000040 RDI: ffff91e589c0f000
RBP: ffff91e5855bd100 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 3d00545216f43d00
R10: ffff91e584fdcc50 R11: 00000060dd8616f4 R12: ffff91e58132d000
R13: ffff91e584fdcc68 R14: ffff91e5869ce800 R15: ffff91e589c0f000
FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff91e898100000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007f788f7c44c0 CR3: 0000000008e1a000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
&amp;amp;lt;IRQ&amp;amp;gt;
 ?…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; openEuler:24.03-LTS: kernel&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Linux Kernel, the operating system core itself.&#13;
&#13;
Security Fix(es):&#13;
&#13;
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&#13;
&#13;
ipvlan: Dont Use skb-&amp;amp;gt;sk in ipvlan_process_v{4,6}_outbound&#13;
&#13;
Raw packet from PF_PACKET socket ontop of an IPv6-backed ipvlan device will
hit WARN_ON_ONCE() in sk_mc_loop() through sch_direct_xmit() path.&#13;
&#13;
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at net/core/sock.c:775 sk_mc_loop+0x2d/0x70
Modules linked in: sch_netem ipvlan rfkill cirrus drm_shmem_helper sg drm_kms_helper
CPU: 2 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/2 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0+ #279
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:sk_mc_loop+0x2d/0x70
Code: fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 65 0f b7 15 f7 96 a3 4f 31 c0 66 85 d2 75 26 48 85 ff 74 1c
RSP: 0018:ffffa9584015cd78 EFLAGS: 00010212
RAX: 0000000000000011 RBX: ffff91e585793e00 RCX: 0000000002c6a001
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000040 RDI: ffff91e589c0f000
RBP: ffff91e5855bd100 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 3d00545216f43d00
R10: ffff91e584fdcc50 R11: 00000060dd8616f4 R12: ffff91e58132d000
R13: ffff91e584fdcc68 R14: ffff91e5869ce800 R15: ffff91e589c0f000
FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff91e898100000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007f788f7c44c0 CR3: 0000000008e1a000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
&amp;amp;lt;IRQ&amp;amp;gt;
 ?…&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2024-2076</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>UBUNTU-CVE-2024-40950</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2024-40950</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 56 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING &amp;#34;[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order&amp;#34; was triggered.  But the test cases are only for anonmous folios.  while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio.  The folio_test_anon() check is missing.  So the split of the anonmous THP is failed.  This is also the same for shmem_mapping().  We&amp;#39;d better add a check for both.  But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index &amp;gt;= end) is always false.  shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn&amp;#39;t support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to THP.  But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios properly. Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch, large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 56 more&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING &amp;#34;[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order&amp;#34; was triggered.  But the test cases are only for anonmous folios.  while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio.  The folio_test_anon() check is missing.  So the split of the anonmous THP is failed.  This is also the same for shmem_mapping().  We&amp;#39;d better add a check for both.  But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index &amp;gt;= end) is always false.  shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn&amp;#39;t support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to THP.  But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios properly. Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch, large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2024-40950</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WID-SEC-W-2024-1607 — Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen</title>
      <link>https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2024-1607</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux-Kernel ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erweitern, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen oder einen unspezifischen Angriff durchzuführen.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;Ein lokaler Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux-Kernel ausnutzen, um seine Privilegien zu erweitern, einen Denial-of-Service-Zustand zu erzeugen, vertrauliche Informationen offenzulegen oder einen unspezifischen Angriff durchzuführen.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2024-1607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
