We use necessary cookies to keep DataHouse.pl working and optional cookies for analytics and marketing. You can accept all, reject optional cookies, or configure your choices.

OK, I AGREE I DISAGREE CHANGE THE CONSENTS

Thanks to cookies and similar technologies (hereinafter referred to as "cookies"), we can improve the functionality of our website and display content tailored to your needs and expectations.

For more information on the use of cookies, please see our [Cookie Policy].

I agree to:

Analytical use of cookies

Marketing use of cookies

Use of necessary cookies (always active)

Your preferences regarding cookies, expressed after logging in to the website, will be assigned to your Datahouse.pl account. This ensures that it is also saved if you sign in to your account from another device or browser.

CONFIRM SELECTION CANCEL

CVE-2024-40950: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn't support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to THP. But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios properly. Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch, large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.

CVE-2024-40950CVSS 5.5Linux

CVE-2024-40950: linux kernel vulnerability

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn't support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to THP. But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios properly. Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch, large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.

CVSS: 5.5 MEDIUM
EPSS: 10.95%
Known exploited: not in KEV
Product: linux kernel

What is known

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: huge_memory: fix misused mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order" was triggered. But the test cases are only for anonmous folios. while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page cache folios. In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called. Also add a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in mapping_large_folio_support() for anon mapping, So we can detect the wrong use more easily. THP folios maybe exist in the pagecache even the file system doesn't support large folio, it is because when CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE is enabled, khugepaged will try to collapse read-only file-backed pages to THP. But the mapping does not actually support multi order large folios properly. Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this patch, large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.

Sources

Back to security hub Contact DataHouse