In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: hugetlb: independent PMD page table shared count
The folio refcount may be increased unexpectly through try_get_folio() by
caller such as split_huge_pages. In huge_pmd_unshare(), we use refcount
to check whether a pmd page table is shared. The check is incorrect if
the refcount is increased by the above caller, and this can cause the page
table leaked:
BUG: Bad page state in process sh pfn:109324
page: refcount:0 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x66 pfn:0x109324
flags: 0x17ffff800000000(node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0xfffff)
page_type: f2(table)
raw: 017ffff800000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
raw: 0000000000000066 0000000000000000 00000000f2000000 0000000000000000
page dumped because: nonzero mapcount
...
CPU: 31 UID: 0 PID: 7515 Comm: sh Kdump: loaded Tainted: G B 6.13.0-rc2master+ #7
Tainted: [B]=BAD_PAGE
Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
Call trace:
show_stack+0x20/0x38 (C)
dump_stack_lvl+0x80/0xf8
dump_stack+0x18/0x28
bad_page+0x8c/0x130
free_page_is_bad_report+0xa4/0xb0
free_unref_page+0x3cc/0x620
__folio_put+0xf4/0x158
split_huge_pages_all+0x1e0/0x3e8
split_huge_pages_write+0x25c/0x2d8
full_proxy_write+0x64/0xd8
vfs_write+0xcc/0x280
ksys_write+0x70/0x110
__arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x38
invoke_syscall+0x50/0x120
el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xc8/0xf0
do_el0_svc+0x24/0x38
el0_svc+0x34/0x128
el0t_64_sync_handler+0xc8/0xd0
el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x198
The issue may be triggered by damon, offline_page, page_idle, etc, which
will increase the refcount of page table.
- The page table itself will be discarded after reporting the
"nonzero mapcount".
- The HugeTLB page mapped by the page table miss freeing since we
treat the page table as shared and a shared page table will not be
unmapped.
Fix it by introducing independent PMD page table shared count. As
described by comment, pt_index/pt_mm/pt_frag_refcount are used for s390
gmap, x86 pgds and powerpc, pt_share_count is used for x86/arm64/riscv
pmds, so we can reuse the field as pt_share_count.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it