In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: fix __vm_normal_page() to handle missing support for pmd_special()/pud_special()
On x86 32-bit with THP enabled, zap_huge_pmd() is seen to generate a
"WARNING: mm/memory.c:735 at __vm_normal_page+0x6a/0x7d", from the
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(is_zero_pfn(pfn) || is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn)); followed by
"BUG: Bad rss-counter state"s, then later "BUG: Bad page state"s when
reclaim gets to call shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan().
It's as if the _PAGE_SPECIAL bit never got set in the huge_zero pmd: and
indeed, whereas pte_special() and pte_mkspecial() are subject to a
dedicated CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL, pmd_special() and pmd_mkspecial()
are subject to CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PMD_PFNMAP, which is never enabled on
any 32-bit architecture.
While the problem was exposed through commit d80a9cb1a64a
("mm/huge_memory: add and use normal_or_softleaf_folio_pmd()"), it was an
oversight in commit af38538801c6 ("mm/memory: factor out common code from
vm_normal_page_*()") and would result in other problems:
* huge zero folio accounted in smaps, pagemap (PAGE_IS_FILE) and
numamaps as file-backed THP
* folio_walk_start() returning the folio even without FW_ZEROPAGE set.
Callers seem to tolerate that, though.
... and triggering the VM_WARN_ON_ONE(), although never reported so far.
To fix it, teach vm_normal_page_pmd()/vm_normal_page_pud() to consider
whether pmd_special/pud_special is actually implemented.
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