In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
migrate: correct lock ordering for hugetlb file folios
Syzbot has found a deadlock (analyzed by Lance Yang):
1) Task (5749): Holds folio_lock, then tries to acquire i_mmap_rwsem(read lock).
2) Task (5754): Holds i_mmap_rwsem(write lock), then tries to acquire
folio_lock.
migrate_pages()
-> migrate_hugetlbs()
-> unmap_and_move_huge_page() <- Takes folio_lock!
-> remove_migration_ptes()
-> __rmap_walk_file()
-> i_mmap_lock_read() <- Waits for i_mmap_rwsem(read lock)!
hugetlbfs_fallocate()
-> hugetlbfs_punch_hole() <- Takes i_mmap_rwsem(write lock)!
-> hugetlbfs_zero_partial_page()
-> filemap_lock_hugetlb_folio()
-> filemap_lock_folio()
-> __filemap_get_folio <- Waits for folio_lock!
The migration path is the one taking locks in the wrong order according to
the documentation at the top of mm/rmap.c. So expand the scope of the
existing i_mmap_lock to cover the calls to remove_migration_ptes() too.
This is (mostly) how it used to be after commit c0d0381ade79. That was
removed by 336bf30eb765 for both file & anon hugetlb pages when it should
only have been removed for anon hugetlb pages.
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
- 0.1% 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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