CVE-2026-64283

KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values

HIGH
7
CVSS Score
Published: July 25, 2026 at 08:49 AM UTC
Updated: October 21, 2026 at 01:19 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
HIGH7
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.1%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file. Passing unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be tracked, as unsigned values. On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size (and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values. Taking the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive. Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but operating on their sum is not. For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but that's not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file. Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value, i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the number of pages in a single memslot to the largest positive signed 32-bit value: if (id < KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS && (mem->memory_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES) return -EINVAL; and so that maximum "size" will ever be is 0x7fffffff000. The sum of the two is, however, problematic. While the size is restricted by KVM's memslot logic, the offset is not, i.e. the offset is completely unchecked until the "offset + size > i_size_read(inode)" check. If the offset is the (nearly) largest possible _positive_ value, then adding size to the offset can result in a signed, negative 64-bit value. When compared against the size of the file (guaranteed to be positive), the negative sum is always smaller, and KVM incorrectly allows the absurd offset. Opportunistically add missing includes in kvm_mm.h (instead of relying on its parents).

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

6.8 ≤ v < 7.1.46.8a7800aa80ea4d5356b8474c2302812e9d4926fa6
Vendor states this is fixed in eba85fee7fc6cf28fec38a5bf3c378bef9a79ca6 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in f3a98d5881b9bd4807f49156143565f6aabcef1e (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.114 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.57 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.8 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.1.4 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
HIGH
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
HIGH
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-190

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card