In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: page_ext: add count limit to page_ext_iter_next to prevent invalid PFN access
The page_ext iteration API does not validate if the PFN still belongs to a
valid section while advancing the iterator. When dynamically adding
memory in the hotplug path, it can lead to a NULL pointer dereference
during page_ext_lookup at the boundary of the last valid section when
iterator count equals __pgcount.
The for_each_page_ext() macro calls page_ext_iter_next() as its loop
increment. for_each_page_ext() does a "__page_ext =
page_ext_iter_next(&__iter)" at the end. This causes page_ext_iter_next()
to increment iter->index past __pgcount and call page_ext_lookup(start_pfn
+ __pgcount). During memory hotplug (online), the PFN at start_pfn +
__pgcount may belong to a section that has not yet been initialized,
causing page_ext_lookup() to trigger a NULL pointer dereference.
[ 14.555124][ T846] Call trace:
[ 14.555125][ T846] lookup_page_ext+0x6c/0x108 (P)
[ 14.555127][ T846] page_ext_lookup+0x30/0x3c
[ 14.555129][ T846] __reset_page_owner+0x11c/0x260
[ 14.571201][ T846] __free_pages_ok+0x5e8/0x8e0
[ 14.571204][ T846] __free_pages_core+0x78/0xf0
[ 14.571206][ T846] generic_online_page+0x14/0x24
[ 14.597782][ T846] online_pages+0x178/0x30c
[ 14.597784][ T846] memory_block_change_state+0x284/0x32c
[ 14.597787][ T846] memory_subsys_online+0x4c/0x64
[ 14.597789][ T846] device_online+0x88/0xb0
[ 14.597791][ T846] online_memory_block+0x30/0x40
[ 14.597793][ T846] walk_memory_blocks+0xac/0xe8
[ 14.597794][ T846] add_memory_resource+0x280/0x298
[ 14.656161][ T846] add_memory+0x60/0x98
Move the iteration boundary enforcement inside the iterator functions, so
callers cannot inadvertently access beyond the requested range.
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