BDU:2025-06305

CVE-2022-49760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case even though w...

CVE-2022-49760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case even though w...

CVE-2022-49760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" cas

CVE-2022-49760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ...

GHSA-jwgp-qffh-vpgp

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix PTE marker handling in hugetlb_change_protection() Patch series "mm/hugetlb: uffd-wp fixes for hugetlb_change_protection()". Playing with virtio-mem and background snapshots (using uffd-wp) on hugetlb in QEMU, I managed to trigger a VM_BUG_ON(). Looking into the details, hugetlb_change_protection() seems to not handle uffd-wp correctly in all cases. Patch #1 fixes my test case. I don't have reproducers for patch #2, as it requires running into migration entries. I did not yet check in detail yet if !hugetlb code requires similar care. This patch (of 2): There are two problematic cases when stumbling over a PTE marker in hugetlb_change_protection(): (1) We protect an uffd-wp PTE marker a second time using uffd-wp: we will end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" case and mess up the PTE marker. (2) We unprotect a uffd-wp PTE marker: we will similarly end up in the "!huge_pte_none(pte)" ...