CVE-2026-63799

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

sched/mmcid: Fix OOB clear_bit when CID is MM_CID_UNSET in fixup path

In mm_cid_fixup_cpus_to_tasks(), when rq->curr has the target mm and mm_cid.active is set, the CID is checked with cid_in_transit() before setting the transition bit. In per-CPU mode a newly forked or execd task can be running with mm_cid.cid == MM_CID_UNSET because CIDs are assigned lazily on schedule-in. With cid_in_transit() the guard passes for MM_CID_UNSET (no transit bit), converts it to MM_CID_UNSET | MM_CID_TRANSIT and stores it back; later mm_cid_schedout() feeds this to clear_bit() with MM_CID_UNSET as the bit number, triggering an out-of-bounds write.

Symptoms: this is genuine memory corruption, but a bounded out-of-bounds write, not an arbitrary one. MM_CID_UNSET is the fixed sentinel BIT(31), so once the bad value reaches mm_cid_schedout() the cid_from_transit_cid() strip leaves MM_CID_UNSET, which fails the cid < max_cids convergence test and falls into mm_drop_cid() -> clear_bit(MM_CID_UNSET, mm_cidmask(mm)). The cid bitmap is embedded in the mm_struct slab object (after cpu_bitmap and mm_cpus_allowed) and is only num_possible_cpus() bits wide, so clearing bit 31 is a deterministic OOB bit-clear at a fixed offset of 2^31 / 8 == 256 MiB past the bitmap base. The address is not attacker-influenced (fixed sentinel -> fixed offset) and the op only clears a single bit; what sits 256 MiB further along the direct map is whatever kernel object happens to live there, so this corrupts one bit of unpredictable kernel memory – it is not an arbitrary-address or arbitrary-value write.

It triggers only in per-CPU CID mode, when a CPU is running an active task of the target mm whose cid is still MM_CID_UNSET – the fork()/execve() window before that tasks next schedule-in assigns it a real CID – and a per-CPU -> per-task fixup walks over it (the mode fallback driven by a thread exit, sched_mm_cid_exit(), or by the deferred max_cids recompute in mm_cid_work_fn()).

In practice syzkaller surfaced it as a KASAN use-after-free reported in __schedule -> mm_cid_switch_to, where the offending clear_bit() is inlined via mm_cid_schedout() -> mm_drop_cid().

Guard the transition-bit assignment against MM_CID_UNSET, in addition to the existing cid_in_transit() check, so the bit is only set on a genuine task-owned CID. A CPU-owned (MM_CID_ONCPU) CID of a running active task is handled by the cid_on_cpu(pcp->cid) branch above and never reaches this path, so excluding MM_CID_UNSET (and the already-transitioning case) is sufficient.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8d32856fb72ba976d9c87ba405fd17e80419934c
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de3ab9bd3133899efb92e4cd05ba4203e58fc0a3