In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/mglru: fix and remove redundant unevictable folio handling sort_folio() has a shortcut for moving folios that are no longer evictable but are still sitting on a generation list. However, this shortcut is buggy. It does not follow the PG_lru usage convention, and it has a more serious issue. Unevictable folios are not threaded on lists[LRU_UNEVICTABLE], so that folio->lru can be reused to hold folio->mlock_count (see the comment in lruvec_init()). Hence lruvec_add_folio() skips the list_add() for them, and every other place that turns a folio unevictable initialises mlock_count explicitly: lru_add() sets it to 0, __mlock_folio() and __mlock_new_folio() set it to !!folio_test_mlocked(folio). sort_folio() sets nothing, and the lru_gen_del_folio() right above it may have already poisoned folio->lru via list_del(), so mlock_count ends up aliasing LIST_POISON2, which reads as 0x122, i.e. 290. The result is user v...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/mglru: fix and remove redundant unevictable folio handling sort_folio() has a shortcut for moving folios that are no longer evictable but are still sitting on a generation list. However, this shortcut is buggy. It does not follow the PG_lru usage convention, and it has a more serious issue. Unevictable folios are not threaded on lists[LRU_UNEVICTABLE], so that folio->lru can be reused to hold folio->mlock_count (see the comment in lruvec_init()). Hence lruvec_add_folio() skips the list_add() for them, and every other place that turns a folio unevictable initialises mlock_count explicitly: lru_add() sets it to 0, __mlock_folio() and __mlock_new_folio() set it to !!folio_test_mlocked(folio). sort_folio() sets nothing, and the lru_gen_del_folio() right above it may have already poisoned folio->lru via list_del(), so mlock_count ends up aliasing LIST_POISON2, which reads as 0x122, i.e. 290. The result is user v...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/mglru: fix and remove redundant unevictable folio handling sort_folio() has a shortcut for moving folios that are no longer evictable but are still sitting on a generation list. However, this shortcut is buggy. It does not follow the PG_lru usage convention, and it has a more serious issue. Unevictable folios are not threaded on lists[LRU_UNEVICTABLE], so that folio->lru can be reused to hold folio->mlock_count (see the comment in lruvec_init()). Hence lruvec_add_folio() skips the list_add() for them, and every other place that turns a folio unevictable initialises mlock_count explicitly: lru_add() sets it to 0, __mlock_folio() and __mlock_new_folio() set it to !!folio_test_mlocked(folio). sort_folio() sets nothing, and the lru_gen_del_folio() right above it may have already poisoned folio->lru via list_del(), so mlock_count ends up aliasing LIST_POISON2, which reads as 0x122, i.e. 290. The result is user v

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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/mglru: fix and remove redundant unevictable folio handling sort_folio() has a shortcut for moving folios that are no longer evictable but are still sitting on a generation list. However, this shortcut is buggy. It does not follow the PG_lru usage convention, and it has a more serious issue. Unevictable folios are not threaded on lists[LRU_UNEVICTABLE], so that folio->lru can be reused to hold folio->mlock_count (see the comment in lruvec_init()). Hence lruvec_add_folio() skips the list_add() for them, and every other place that turns a folio unevictable initialises mlock_count explicitly: lru_add() sets it to 0, __mlock_folio() and __mlock_new_folio() set it to !!folio_test_mlocked(folio). sort_folio() sets nothing, and the lru_gen_del_folio() right above it may have already poisoned folio->lru via list_del(), so mlock_count ends up aliasing LIST_POISON2, which reads as 0x122, i.e. 290. The result is use...