In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/hugetlb: unshare page tables during VMA split, not before
Currently, __split_vma() triggers hugetlb page table unsharing through
vm_ops->may_split(). This happens before the VMA lock and rmap locks are
taken - which is too early, it allows racing VMA-locked page faults in our
process and racing rmap walks from other processes to cause page tables to
be shared again before we actually perform the split.
Fix it by explicitly calling into the hugetlb unshare logic from
__split_vma() in the same place where THP splitting also happens. At that
point, both the VMA and the rmap(s) are write-locked.
An annoying detail is that we can now call into the helper
hugetlb_unshare_pmds() from two different locking contexts:
- from hugetlb_split(), holding:
- mmap lock (exclusively)
- VMA lock
- file rmap lock (exclusively)
- hugetlb_unshare_all_pmds(), which I think is designed to be able to
call us with only the mmap lock held (in shared mode), but currently
only runs while holding mmap lock (exclusively) and VMA lock
Backporting note:
This commit fixes a racy protection that was introduced in commit
b30c14cd6102 ("hugetlb: unshare some PMDs when splitting VMAs"); that
commit claimed to fix an issue introduced in 5.13, but it should actually
also go all the way back.
[jannh@google.com: v2]
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