In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/huge_memory: use correct flags for device private PMD entry
Commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
device-private entries") updated set_pmd_migration_entry() to use
pmdp_huge_get_and_clear() in the softleaf case, but made no further
adjustments to the function itself.
Therefore this function continues to incorrectly use pmd_write(),
pmd_soft_dirty() and pmd_uffd_wp() to determine whether the installed
migration entry should be marked writable, softdirty or uffd-wp
respectively.
Whilst all are incorrect, the most problematic of these is pmd_write(), as
this can lead to corrupted rmap state.
On x86-64 _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY is aliased to _PAGE_RW. So calling
pmd_write() on a softleaf will return the softdirty state encoded in the
entry, assuming CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY was enabled.
This was observed when running the hmm.hmm_device_private.anon_write_child
selftest:
- The test faults in a range then migrates it such that a device-private
THP range is established.
- The parent then migrates it to a device-private writable PMD entry whose
folio is entirely AnonExclusive with entire_mapcount=1, softdirty set
(accidentally correct write state).
- The parent forks and the PMD entries are set to device-private read only
entries, entire_mapcount=2, softdirty still set.
- [BUG] The child writes to the range then migrates to RAM - intending to
install non-writable migration entries - but replacing parent and child
PMD mappings with WRITABLE entries due to misinterpreting the softdirty
bit.
- In remove_migration_pmd(), if !softleaf_is_migration_read(entry) we
set the RMAP_EXCLUSIVE flag when calling folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd() for
both parent and child, which are therefore AnonExclusive.
- [SPLAT] Child sets migrated folio entire_mapcount=1, parent sets
entire_mapcount=2 and we end up with an AnonExclusive folio with
entire_mapcount=2! Assert fires in __folio_add_anon_rmap():
VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
folio_entire_mapcount(folio) > 1 &&
PageAnonExclusive(cur_page), folio)
This patch fixes the issue by correctly referencing the softleaf entry
fields for writable, softdirty and uffd-wp in set_pmd_migration_entry().
It also only updates A/D flags if the entry is present as these are
otherwise not meaningful for a softleaf entry.
This patch also flips the if (!present) { ... } else { ... } logic in
set_pmd_migration_entry() so it is easier to understand, and adds some
comments to make things clearer.
I was able to bisect this to commit 775465fd26a3 ("lib/test_hmm: add zone
device private THP test infrastructure") which first exposes this bug as
it was the commit that permitted test_hmm to generate the test.
However commit 65edfda6f3f2 ("mm/rmap: extend rmap and migration support
device-private entries") is the commit that actually enabled this
behaviour.
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
- 0.1% 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