In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/hugetlb: restore failed global reservations to subpool
Commit a833a693a490 ("mm: hugetlb: fix incorrect fallback for subpool")
fixed an underflow error for hstate->resv_huge_pages caused by incorrectly
attributing globally requested pages to the subpool's reservation.
Unfortunately, this fix also introduced the opposite problem, which would
leave spool->used_hpages elevated if the globally requested pages could
not be acquired. This is because while a subpool's reserve pages only
accounts for what is requested and allocated from the subpool, its "used"
counter keeps track of what is consumed in total, both from the subpool
and globally. Thus, we need to adjust spool->used_hpages in the other
direction, and make sure that globally requested pages are uncharged from
the subpool's used counter.
Each failed allocation attempt increments the used_hpages counter by how
many pages were requested from the global pool. Ultimately, this renders
the subpool unusable, as used_hpages approaches the max limit.
The issue can be reproduced as follows:
- Allocate 4 hugetlb pages
- Create a hugetlb mount with max=4, min=2
- Consume 2 pages globally
- Request 3 pages from the subpool (2 from subpool + 1 from global)
4.1 hugepage_subpool_get_pages(spool, 3) succeeds.
used_hpages += 3
4.2 hugetlb_acct_memory(h, 1) fails: no global pages left
used_hpages -= 2
- Subpool now has used_hpages = 1, despite not being able to
successfully allocate any hugepages. It believes it can now only
allocate 3 more hugepages, not 4.
With each failed allocation attempt incrementing the used counter, the
subpool eventually reaches a point where its used counter equals its
max counter. At that point, any future allocations that try to
allocate hugeTLB pages from the subpool will fail, despite the subpool
not having any of its hugeTLB pages consumed by any user.
Once this happens, there is no way to make the subpool usable again,
since there is no way to decrement the used counter as no process is
really consuming the hugeTLB pages.
The underflow issue that the original commit fixes still remains fixed
as well.
Without this fix, used_hpages would keep on leaking if
hugetlb_acct_memory() fails.
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 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 (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.
The score's inputs: 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