BDU:2025-12293

CVE-2025-37760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/vma: add give_up_on_oom option on modify/merge, use in uffd release Currently, if a VMA merge fails due to an OOM condition arising on commit merge or a failure to duplicate anon_vma's, we report this so the caller can handle it. However there are cases where the caller is only ostensibly trying a merge, and doesn't mind if it fails due to this condition. Since we do not want to introduce an implicit assumption that we only actually modify VMAs after OOM conditions might arise, add a 'give up on oom' option and make an explicit contract that, should this flag be set, we absolutely will not modify any VMAs should OOM arise and just bail out. Since it'd be very unusual for a user to try to vma_modify() with this flag set but be specifying a range within a VMA which ends up being split (which can fail due to rlimit issues, not only OOM), we add a debug warning for this condition. The motivating reason for this is uf...

CVE-2025-37760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/vma: add give_up_on_oom option on modify/merge, use in uffd release Currently, if a VMA merge fails due to an OOM condition arising on commit merge or a failure to duplicate anon_vma's, we report this so the caller can handle it. However there are cases where the caller is only ostensibly trying a merge, and doesn't mind if it fails due to this condition. Since we do not want to introduce an implicit assumption that we only actually modify VMAs after OOM conditions might arise, add a 'give up on oom' option and make an explicit contract that, should this flag be set, we absolutely will not modify any VMAs should OOM arise and just bail out. Since it'd be very unusual for a user to try to vma_modify() with this flag set but be specifying a range within a VMA which ends up being split (which can fail due to rlimit issues, not only OOM), we add a debug warning for this condition. The motivating reason for this is uf...

CVE-2025-37760

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/vma: add give_up_on_oom option on modify/merge, use in uffd release Currently, if a VMA merge fails due to an OOM condition arising on commit merge or a failure to duplicate anon_vma's, we report this so the caller can handle it. However there are cases where the caller is only ostensibly trying a merge, and doesn't mind if it fails due to this condition. Since we do not want to introduce an implicit assumption that we only actually modify VMAs after OOM conditions might arise, add a 'give up on oom' option and make an explicit contract that, should this flag be set, we absolutely will not modify any VMAs should OOM arise and just bail out. Since it'd be very unusual for a user to try to vma_modify() with this flag set but be specifying a range within a VMA which ends up being split (which can fail due to rlimit issues, not only OOM), we add a debug warning for this condition. The motivating reason for this is

CVE-2025-37760

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

GHSA-p4vj-hhfc-5j8x

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/vma: add give_up_on_oom option on modify/merge, use in uffd release Currently, if a VMA merge fails due to an OOM condition arising on commit merge or a failure to duplicate anon_vma's, we report this so the caller can handle it. However there are cases where the caller is only ostensibly trying a merge, and doesn't mind if it fails due to this condition. Since we do not want to introduce an implicit assumption that we only actually modify VMAs after OOM conditions might arise, add a 'give up on oom' option and make an explicit contract that, should this flag be set, we absolutely will not modify any VMAs should OOM arise and just bail out. Since it'd be very unusual for a user to try to vma_modify() with this flag set but be specifying a range within a VMA which ends up being split (which can fail due to rlimit issues, not only OOM), we add a debug warning for this condition. The motivating reason for this...