# CVE-2026-64294: mm: do file ownership checks with the proper mount idmap

> Attackers can bypass file ownership checks in mincore and madvise on idmapped mounts, potentially accessing restricted memory information.

- **Severity:** Medium 5.5 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Any signed-in user
- **Attackable:** Local or same network only
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 25 Jul 2026
- **Updated:** 23 Aug 2026
- **Also known as:** AZL-93641, BELL-CVE-2026-64294, DEBIAN-CVE-2026-64294, GHSA-rgg7-9234-2h22, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2204-CVE-2026-64294, UBUNTU-CVE-2026-64294

## What is CVE-2026-64294?

CVE-2026-64294 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 25 Jul 2026. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

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

mm: do file ownership checks with the proper mount idmap

Ever since idmapped mounts were introduced, inode ownership checks (for
side-channel protection) in mincore() and madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT) were done
against the nop_mnt_idmap, which completely ignores the file's mount's
idmap.  This results in odd edgecases like:

1) mount/bind-mount with an idmap userA:userB:1
2) userB runs an owner_or_capable() check on file that is owned by userA
on-disk/in-memory, but owned by userB after idmap translation
3) owner_or_capable() mysteriously fails as the correct idmap wasn't supplied

In the case of mincore/madvise MADV_PAGEOUT, this is usually benign,
because file_permission(file, MAY_WRITE) will probably succeed, as it uses
the proper idmap internally, but it does not need to be the case on e.g a
0444 file where even the owner itself doesn't have permissions to write to
it.

Since this is clearly not trivial to get right, introduce a
file_owner_or_capable() that can carry the correct semantics, and switch
the various users in mm to it.

The issue was found by manual code inspection & an off-list discussion
with Jan Kara.

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-64294?

It affects 1 product.


Products: Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2026-64294?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2026-64294 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-64294 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

- [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2026-64294 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2026-64294 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 25 Jul 2026. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2026-64294 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-64294/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-64294/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2026-64294
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-64294
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2026-64294

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-64294/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.