In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm, swap: don't free a hibernation slot that is in the swap cache
A slot with a folio in the swap cache is freed when the folio leaves the
cache, not when its count drops. swap_put_entries_cluster() follows that
rule. swap_free_hibernation_slot() does not, it calls
__swap_cluster_free_entries() whether or not a folio sits on the slot.
Cluster readahead can put one there. It walks a raw page_cluster sized
window of offsets around the faulting entry, and a hibernation slot passes
__swap_cache_add_check() because it is not a folio and its count is not
zero. Freeing the slot then clears the entry under that folio.
The folio is now unreachable from the swap table, and the offset goes back
to the allocator. The folio is still on the LRU though, so reclaim can
pick it up later. It then takes the old offset out of folio->swap and
overwrites the table entry there, which by then may belong to someone
else.
This bug can trigger silent memory corruption, process crashes, or data
instability across completely unrelated userspace applications - typically
occurring when uswsusp is preparing the hibernation image.
I found this while working on giving hibernation slots their own marker in
the swap table, which I had discussed with Kairui.
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/abp7aDgYLrxF3Me8@KASONG-MC4/) As far as
I know there are no reports, so there is no Reported-by/Closes to add.
Check for a cached folio before freeing. The slot is then left in the
ordinary state where only the swap cache holds it, and it is freed when
the folio leaves the cache, either through the reclaim below or through
normal reclaim later.
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