In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/huge_memory: fix folio isn't locked in softleaf_to_folio()
On arm64 server, we found folio that get from migration entry isn't locked
in softleaf_to_folio(). This issue triggers when mTHP splitting and
zap_nonpresent_ptes() races, and the root cause is lack of memory barrier
in softleaf_to_folio(). The race is as follows:
CPU0 CPU1
deferred_split_scan() zap_nonpresent_ptes()
lock folio
split_folio()
unmap_folio()
change ptes to migration entries
__split_folio_to_order() softleaf_to_folio()
set flags(including PG_locked) for tail pages folio = pfn_folio(softleaf_to_pfn(entry))
smp_wmb() VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_locked(folio))
prep_compound_page() for tail pages
In __split_folio_to_order(), smp_wmb() guarantees page flags of tail pages
are visible before the tail page becomes non-compound. smp_wmb() should
be paired with smp_rmb() in softleaf_to_folio(), which is missed. As a
result, if zap_nonpresent_ptes() accesses migration entry that stores tail
pfn, softleaf_to_folio() may see the updated compound_head of tail page
before page->flags.
This issue will trigger VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in pfn_swap_entry_folio()
because of the race between folio split and zap_nonpresent_ptes()
leading to a folio incorrectly undergoing modification without a folio
lock being held.
This is a BUG_ON() before commit 93976a20345b ("mm: eliminate further
swapops predicates"), which in merged in v6.19-rc1.
To fix it, add missing smp_rmb() if the softleaf entry is migration entry
in softleaf_to_folio() and softleaf_to_page().
[[email protected]: update function name and comments]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- <0.1% 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: 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.
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