CVE-2026-98414 — memcg: avoid charging the root memcg from obj_cgroup_charge_pages()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: memcg: avoid charging the root memcg from obj_cgroup_charge_pages() obj_cgroup_charge_pages() resolves the objcg to its memcg and calls try_charge_memcg(), which does not short circuit the root memcg. That memcg can be the root memcg: obj_cgroup_is_root() reflects the memcg the objcg was created for and is never updated, while memcg_reparent_objcgs() does redirect objcg->memcg to the parent on rmdir. An objcg of a dying child of root therefore passes every obj_cgroup_is_root() filter but resolves to the root memcg. Folios keep the objcg they were charged with, so this is easy to reach through zswap: allocate anon memory in a cgroup, move the task out, remove the cgroup, then write to the root cgroup's memory.reclaim. The reclaimed folios are charged through the reparented objcg and end up in refill_stock() with the root memcg: WARNING: mm/memcontrol.c:2198 at refill_stock+0x644/0x940 refill_stock+0x644/0x940 try_charge_memcg+0x12d6/0x1570 __obj_cgroup_charge+0x35/0xf0 obj_cgroup_charge+0x1de/0x210 obj_cgroup_charge_zswap+0x83/0x270 zswap_store+0x1620/0x2000 swap_writeout+0x94c/0x14c0 shrink_folio_list+0x3388/0x52b0 [...] try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages+0x30d/0x830 user_proactive_reclaim+0x504/0x840 memory_reclaim+0x1f/0x30 Beyond the warning, the charge is asymmetric: obj_cgroup_uncharge_pages() skips refill_stock() for the root memcg, so the root's page counter grows and is never uncharged. It is not user visible, since memory.current is not exposed on the root, but it is a leak. Use try_charge(), which returns early for the root memcg, restoring the symmetry with obj_cgroup_uncharge_pages(). The above sequence was scripted into a standalone reproducer (zswap on, swap on a virtio disk, 512MB of anon memory faulted in inside a child of the root cgroup, the task then migrated to the root cgroup, the child removed, followed by "echo 600M swappiness=max > memory.reclaim" on the root) and run in a CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y VM. It reproduces the splat on the first zswap store of a reparented folio, with the same call chain as the report. With this patch applied the splat is gone while the zswap store count over the run is unchanged, so the same path is still exercised. cgroup selftests test_zswap, test_kmem and test_memcontrol show no new failures.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | ≥ 20d6c17252282c3af261d1cde8e34def1b2458c8 and < d5cdff14c385bf42d03c0dd4c3e88ddf4c28b8a9≥ 20d6c17252282c3af261d1cde8e34def1b2458c8 and < ecc03877b1b05cb1e3a72175ccb868383eccc518≥ 20d6c17252282c3af261d1cde8e34def1b2458c8 and < 6e673d0879ef78c395cfe0d3ba316690a60055d8version 6.15 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× References added · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 16h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 16h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98431 RDMA/uverbs: Fix mmap_lock/disassociation_lock circular dependency 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98430 RDMA/efa: Keep admin queues alive while IRQ is registered 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98429 RDMA/efa: Keep EQ resources alive while IRQ is registered 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98428 ALSA: usb: 6fire: Avoid embedded URBs 1d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No CVSS score published by NVD, the CNA, CISA or GitHub so far.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No CWE classification.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-98414 is "memcg: avoid charging the root memcg from obj_cgroup_charge_pages()", rated Unknown. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. EPSS 0.21% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.