In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/mempolicy: skip non-present PMDs when queueing folios
Patch series "mm: handle device-private PMDs in walk callbacks", v3.
Since commit 368076f52ebe ("mm/huge_memory: add device-private THP support
to PMD operations") a PMD may hold a device-private swap entry whenever an
HMM-based GPU driver migrates an anonymous THP folio to device memory via
migrate_vma_pages().
pmd_trans_huge_lock() succeeds for such PMDs (pmd_is_huge() returns true
for any non-present, non-none huge PMD), so several MM walk callbacks that
used to assume present THP or migration entry are now reachable with a
device-private PMD. The results range from a VM_BUG_ON() firing on debug
kernels, to an oops on a bogus vmemmap dereference, to silently isolating
an unrelated live folio from LRU in the aliasing case.
This patch (of 3):
queue_folios_pmd() is called under pmd_trans_huge_lock(), whose
pmd_is_huge() check returns true for any non-present, non-none PMD
softleaf. Passing such a PMD to pmd_folio() treats the softleaf encoding
as a hardware PFN and can return a bogus folio pointer.
Mirror queue_folios_pte_range(): handle non-present entries before looking
up a folio. Keep migration entries counted as failures, but skip other
non-present PMDs such as device-private entries.
Potential trigger: an HMM-based GPU driver migrates an anonymous THP folio
to device memory via migrate_vma_pages(), leaving a device-private PMD.
Userspace then calls mbind(), migrate_pages() or set_mempolicy_home_node()
on that 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