In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/migrate: fix shmem xarray update during migration
A shmem folio can be either in page cache or in swap cache, but not at the
same time. Namely, once it is in swap cache, folio->mapping should be
NULL, and the folio is no longer in a shmem mapping.
In __folio_migrate_mapping(), to determine the number of xarray entries to
update, folio_test_swapbacked() is used, but that conflates shmem in page
cache case and shmem in swap cache case. It leads to xarray multi-index
entry corruption, since it turns a sibling entry to a normal entry during
xas_store() (see [1] for a userspace reproduction). Fix it by only using
folio_test_swapcache() to determine whether xarray is storing swap cache
entries or not to choose the right number of xarray entries to update.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Z8idPCkaJW1IChjT@casper.infradead.org/
Note:
In __split_huge_page(), folio_test_anon() && folio_test_swapcache() is
used to get swap_cache address space, but that ignores the shmem folio in
swap cache case. It could lead to NULL pointer dereferencing when a
in-swap-cache shmem folio is split at __xa_store(), since
!folio_test_anon() is true and folio->mapping is NULL. But fortunately,
its caller split_huge_page_to_list_to_order() bails out early with EBUSY
when folio->mapping is NULL. So no need to take care of it here.
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
- 0.2% 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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