In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
gfs2: Prevent recursive memory reclaim
Function new_inode() returns a new inode with inode->i_mapping->gfp_mask
set to GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE. This value includes the __GFP_FS flag, so
allocations in that address space can recurse into filesystem memory
reclaim. We don't want that to happen because it can consume a
significant amount of stack memory.
Worse than that is that it can also deadlock: for example, in several
places, gfs2_unstuff_dinode() is called inside filesystem transactions.
This calls filemap_grab_folio(), which can allocate a new folio, which
can trigger memory reclaim. If memory reclaim recurses into the
filesystem and starts another transaction, a deadlock will ensue.
To fix these kinds of problems, prevent memory reclaim from recursing
into filesystem code by making sure that the gfp_mask of inode address
spaces doesn't include __GFP_FS.
The "meta" and resource group address spaces were already using GFP_NOFS
as their gfp_mask (which doesn't include __GFP_FS). The default value
of GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE is less restrictive than GFP_NOFS, though. To
avoid being overly limiting, use the default value and only knock off
the __GFP_FS flag. I'm not sure if this will actually make a
difference, but it also shouldn't hurt.
This patch is loosely based on commit ad22c7a043c2 ("xfs: prevent stack
overflows from page cache allocation").
Fixes xfstest generic/273.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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