CVE-2025-21932

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2025-04-01. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3

Also known asEUVD-2025-9389 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-fcgh-gjcg-cmc2 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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

mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure

The remainder of vma_modify() relies upon the vmg state remaining pristine after a merge attempt.

Usually this is the case, however in the one edge case scenario of a merge attempt failing not due to the specified range being unmergeable, but rather due to an out of memory error arising when attempting to commit the merge, this assumption becomes untrue.

This results in vmg->start, end being modified, and thus the proceeding attempts to split the VMA will be done with invalid start/end values.

Thankfully, it is likely practically impossible for us to hit this in reality, as it would require a maple tree node pre-allocation failure that would likely never happen due to it being 'too small to fail', i.e. the kernel would simply keep retrying reclaim until it succeeded.

However, this scenario remains theoretically possible, and what we are doing here is wrong so we must correct it.

The safest option is, when this scenario occurs, to simply give up the operation. If we cannot allocate memory to merge, then we cannot allocate memory to split either (perhaps moreso!).

Any scenario where this would be happening would be under very extreme (likely fatal) memory pressure, so it's best we give up early.

So there is no doubt it is appropriate to simply bail out in this scenario.

However, in general we must if at all possible never assume VMG state is stable after a merge attempt, since merge operations update VMG fields. As a result, additionally also make this clear by storing start, end in local variables.

The issue was reported originally by syzkaller, and by Brad Spengler (via an off-list discussion), and in both instances it manifested as a triggering of the assert:

VM_WARN_ON_VMG(start >= end, vmg);

In vma_merge_existing_range().

It seems at least one scenario in which this is occurring is one in which the merge being attempted is due to an madvise() across multiple VMAs which looks like this:

start end |<------>| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------|

When madvise_walk_vmas() is invoked, we first find vma in the above (determining prev to be equal to vma as we are offset into vma), and then enter the loop.

We determine the end of vma that forms part of the range we are madvise()'ing by setting 'tmp' to this value:

/* Here vma->vm_start <= start < (end|vma->vm_end) */ tmp = vma->vm_end;

We then invoke the madvise() operation via visit(), letting prev get updated to point to vma as part of the operation:

/* Here vma->vm_start <= start < tmp <= (end|vma->vm_end). */ error = visit(vma, &prev, start, tmp, arg);

Where the visit() function pointer in this instance is madvise_vma_behavior().

As observed in syzkaller reports, it is ultimately madvise_update_vma() that is invoked, calling vma_modify_flags_name() and vma_modify() in turn.

Then, in vma_modify(), we attempt the merge:

merged = vma_merge_existing_range(vmg); if (merged) return merged;

We invoke this with vmg->start, end set to start, tmp as such:

start tmp |<--->| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------|

We find ourselves in the merge right scenario, but the one in which we cannot remove the middle (we are offset into vma).

Here we have a special case where vmg->start, end get set to perhaps unintuitive values - we intended to shrink the middle VMA and expand the next.

This means vmg->start, end are set to... vma->vm_start, start.

Now the commit_merge() fails, and vmg->start, end are left like this. This means we return to the rest of vma_modify() with vmg->start, end (here denoted as start', end') set as:

start' end' |<-->| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------|

So we now erroneously try to split accordingly. This is where the unfortunate ---truncated---

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
25
EG Risk 25/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity55% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
10th
KEV
Not listed

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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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

Published

April 1, 2025

Last Modified

August 5, 2026

Advisory Details (3)

Auto-updated Jul 30, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/79636d2981b066acd945117387a9533f56411f6f
Web page

mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/53fd215f7886a1e8dea5a9ca1391dbb697fff601
Web page

mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/47b16d0462a460000b8f05dfb1292377ac48f3ca

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
linuxKernel @ 6.12.19 (fixes >=6.12.0)—osv

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.12.19-1: fixed in 6.12.19-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.12.19-1: fixed in 6.12.19-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 39× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 96 of 201 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 4 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 105 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-06 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  2. 2026-11-05 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  3. 2026-11-04 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  4. 2026-11-03 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  5. 2026-11-02 16:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  6. 2026-11-01 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  7. 2026-10-31 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  8. 2026-10-30 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  9. 2026-10-29 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  10. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  11. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  12. 2026-10-26 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  13. 2026-10-25 16:42 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-25 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  15. 2026-10-24 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  16. 2026-10-24 01:12 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-24 01:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fcgh-gjcg-cmc2 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  18. 2026-10-23 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  19. 2026-10-22 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  20. 2026-10-21 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  21. 2026-10-20 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  22. 2026-10-19 23:25 UTCOSV refresh
  23. 2026-10-19 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  24. 2026-10-18 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  25. 2026-10-18 05:46 UTCEG score recompute
Show 71 more
  1. 2026-10-17 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  2. 2026-10-15 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  3. 2026-10-14 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  4. 2026-10-13 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  5. 2026-10-12 17:19 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-12 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  7. 2026-10-11 20:51 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 19:01 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-11 15:41 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  11. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  12. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  13. 2026-10-08 17:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  14. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  15. 2026-10-06 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  16. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  17. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  18. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  19. 2026-10-02 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  20. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  21. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  22. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  23. 2026-09-27 03:45 UTCOSV refresh
  24. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  25. 2026-09-26 00:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  26. 2026-09-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  27. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  28. 2026-09-22 14:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  29. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  30. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  31. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  32. 2026-09-16 05:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  33. 2026-09-15 03:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  34. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  35. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 10th percentile
  36. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  37. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  38. 2026-09-10 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  39. 2026-09-08 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  40. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  41. 2026-09-07 12:48 UTCOSV refresh
  42. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  43. 2026-09-05 15:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  44. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  45. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  46. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  47. 2026-09-01 04:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  48. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  49. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  50. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  51. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  52. 2026-08-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  53. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  54. 2026-08-21 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  55. 2026-08-20 22:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  56. 2026-08-20 22:31 UTCOSV refresh
  57. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  58. 2026-08-18 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  59. 2026-08-17 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  60. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  61. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  62. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  63. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  64. 2026-08-12 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  65. 2026-08-10 23:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  66. 2026-08-09 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  67. 2026-08-07 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  68. 2026-08-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  69. 2026-08-05 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 9th percentile
  70. 2026-08-05 14:00 UTCEG score recompute
  71. 2026-08-05 14:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fcgh-gjcg-cmc2 · GitHub CVSS 5.5

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2025-21932?
CVE-2025-21932 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on April 1, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure The remainder of vma_modify() relies upon the vmg state remaining pristine after a merge attempt. Usually this is the case, however in the one edge case scenario of a merge…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2025-21932 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2025-21932 was published on April 1, 2025. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of August 5, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2025-21932 actively exploited?
CVE-2025-21932 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (10th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-21932?
CVE-2025-21932 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2025-21932?
A fix for CVE-2025-21932 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2025-21932

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2025-21932?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.