CVE-2026-98118

netfs: Fix readahead synchronisation issues by loading all folios upfront

HIGH
7.1
CVSS Score
Published: September 25, 2026 at 10:36 AM UTC
Updated: October 28, 2026 at 04:00 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
HIGH7.1
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.1%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfs: Fix readahead synchronisation issues by loading all folios upfront There are some synchronisation issues that derive from the app thread adding more folios to the rolling buffer whilst the collector thread is looking at them or trying to clear them, such as determining the setting of front_folio_order when the next folio hasn't been added yet, The reason for the rolling buffer approach is that loading the buffer upfront and then dropping all the refs just acquired is quite a slow operation, and loading progressively allows some of the cost to be deferred until after at least some of the I/O is started. Instead, a better way is to load all the folios into the rolling buffer upfront - and then drop the refs later, once the I/O is in progress. (Even better would be for the refs not to be there at all.) Fix this by changing the rolling buffer loader to load all the folios selected by the VM for readahead upfront into the folio queue. The folio queue is allocated a batch worth at a time as we don't know how many folios are involved (the readahead_control struct, alas, has a page count, not a folio count). The folio refs acquired from readahead are then dropped in bulk once the first subrequest is dispatched as it's quite a slow operation. The collector waits for NETFS_RREQ_NEED_PUT_RA_REFS to be cleared so that it doesn't unlock folios before the xarray has been scanned for them. This simplifies the buffer handling later and isn't noticeably slower as the xarray doesn't need to be modified and the folios are all already pre-locked.

Affected

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

6.12 ≤ v < 7.2.76.127.3ee4cdf7ba857a894ad1650d6ab77669cbbfa329e
Vendor states this is fixed in 8c9b33945712074a85d3bdacbca036ba6b3d92c6 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in fed0b33e6c584986ba70018ec9f9787a98216e64 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2.7 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.3-rc3 (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
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusANALYZED
CWE
CWE-362

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