CVE-2026-98414
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
memcg: avoid charging the root memcg from obj_cgroup_charge_pages()
No rank
rank@v1 withholds a number for this record
nothing this rule scores is held for this record, so there is no ordering to state. That is a fact about the sources, not a finding about the software.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Running Linux? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (free with an account: one stack of three products)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
Or open an investigation: an incident or a near miss on this CVE, kept with its evidence where anyone in your organisation can find it.
Choose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Show full BOD 26-04 deadline
CISA has not scored it, so the directive's own defaults apply: automatable no, technical impact total. Calendar days from the KEV listing or from when you find it on a system, whichever is first. Federal agencies are bound from 7 Dec 2026, and contracts often carry it to suppliers. The directive and its table
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
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. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
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.
check it yourself git.kernel.org git.kernel.org git.kernel.org receipt
Movement
Only one observation of this value is held, so there is no movement to show yet.
The full biography
The record had been public for 1 day when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2026-98414.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.