CVE-2026-98226mm, swap: fix SWAP_USAGE_OFFLIST_BIT collision with real usage count
- —Not scoredno CVSS score yet
- 0.17%Exploitation in 30 daysEPSS · top 94% of all CVEs
- NoKnown exploitednot in CISA's KEV catalog
- NonePublic exploitsnone known yet
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm, swap: fix SWAP_USAGE_OFFLIST_BIT collision with real usage count SWAP_USAGE_OFFLIST_BIT is embedded in the si->inuse_pages usage counter, and is meant to sit above any value that counter can reach. However, it is defined from BITS_PER_TYPE(atomic_t), so it is bit 30. On a system with 4 KiB pages the flag collides with the usage count once that count reaches 4 TiB. swap_usage_in_pages() masks bit 30 out, so whenever the real count has that bit set, every caller of it reads 4 TiB low: * /proc/swaps understates Used by 4 TiB. * A raw count of exactly 2^30 masks to zero, so try_to_unuse() takes its "if (!swap_usage_in_pages(si)) goto success;" early exit and swapoff tears the device down while pages are still swapped out. Nothing in the rest of swapoff aborts the teardown, so those pages are lost. Independently of swapoff, the collision also corrupts the counter and the plist. On a device in normal use, a free that leaves bit 30 set in the count makes swap_usage_sub() see the flag where there is only count, and call add_to_avail_list(). It clears the bit with fetch_and(~SWAP_USAGE_OFFLIST_BIT), leaving the stored count 4 TiB below the real one, and calls plist_add() on a device that is already listed, tripping the WARN_ON(!plist_node_empty(node)) in plist_add() and linking the node a second time. Change the definition of SWAP_USAGE_OFFLIST_BIT to be based on atomic_long_t instead. Note that the usage counter field itself is of this same type, so it is still a valid bit.
Timeline
ID reserved
By Linux
- 11 days later
· 11 days later
Published
- 13 days later
· 13 days later
Record updated
Changes after publication (a new score, a public exploit, EPSS crossing 1, 10 or 50 %, leaving KEV) are kept since November 2026; earlier ones are not known.
Scores
No CVSS score yet: neither the CNA, CISA nor NVD has scored this CVE. NVD status: Received.
- EPSS (exploitation in 30 days)
- 0.17% · top 94% of all CVEs (13 Nov 2026)
The list uses the assigner's score when there is one, then CISA's, then NVD's: Not scored.
Affected products
- affected b228386cf237e659cdf5d8037a19db0b0a06f6b5 – < 0a41a46859df0d2bd7ed127197aac7c7389c00ed
- affected b228386cf237e659cdf5d8037a19db0b0a06f6b5 – < 7c0d0d6de46076b43a2acaf1026b6648f8434c39
- affected b228386cf237e659cdf5d8037a19db0b0a06f6b5 – < 12e9ac7bc5b254048f886bf421e3a15491106c1f
- affected 6.14
- unaffected < 6.14
- unaffected 6.18.54 – ≤ 6.18.*
- unaffected 7.2.8 – ≤ 7.2.*
- unaffected 7.3 – ≤ *
References
Sources
The same CVE in the primary databases and aggregators, to check against.
- CVE.org record (opens in a new tab)
- CVE List JSON (GitHub) (opens in a new tab)
- NVD (opens in a new tab)
- FIRST EPSS (opens in a new tab)
- EUVD EUVD-2026-93154 (opens in a new tab)
- OSV.dev (opens in a new tab)
- GitHub Advisories (opens in a new tab)
- CIRCL Vulnerability-Lookup (opens in a new tab)
Badge for a README or a ticket
[](https://cveledger.app/cve/CVE-2026-98226)Record last updated .