CVE-2025-22034

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/gup: reject FOLL_SPLIT_PMD with hugetlb VMAs Patch series "mm: fixes for device-exclusive entries (hmm)", v2. Discussing the PageTail() call in make_device_exclusive_range() with Willy, I recently discovered [1] that device-exclusive handling does not properly work with THP, making the hmm-tests selftests fail if THPs are enabled on the system. Looking into more details, I found that hugetlb is not properly fenced, and I realized that something that was bugging me for longer -- how device-exclusive entries interact with mapcounts -- completely breaks migration/swapout/split/hwpoison handling of these folios while they have device-exclusive PTEs. The program below can be used to allocate 1 GiB worth of pages and making them device-exclusive on a kernel with CONFIG_TEST_HMM. Once they are device-exclusive, these folios cannot get swapped out (proc$pid/smaps_rollup will always indicate 1 GiB RSS no matter how much one forces memory reclaim), and when having a memory block onlined to ZONE_MOVABLE, trying to offline it will loop forever and complain about failed migration of a page that should be movable. # echo offline > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory136/state # echo online_movable > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory136/state # ./hmm-swap & ... wait until everything is device-exclusive # echo offline > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory136/state [ 285.193431][T14882] page: refcount:2 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x7f20671f7 pfn:0x442b6a [ 285.196618][T14882] memcg:ffff888179298000 [ 285.198085][T14882] anon flags: 0x5fff0000002091c(referenced|uptodate| dirty|active|owner_2|swapbacked|node=1|zone=3|lastcpupid=0x7ff) [ 285.201734][T14882] raw: ... [ 285.204464][T14882] raw: ... [ 285.207196][T14882] page dumped because: migration failure [ 285.209072][T14882] page_owner tracks the page as allocated [ 285.210915][T14882] page last allocated via order 0, migratetype Movable, gfp_mask 0x140dca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO), id 14926, tgid 14926 (hmm-swap), ts 254506295376, free_ts 227402023774 [ 285.216765][T14882] post_alloc_hook+0x197/0x1b0 [ 285.218874][T14882] get_page_from_freelist+0x76e/0x3280 [ 285.220864][T14882] __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x38e/0x2740 [ 285.223302][T14882] alloc_pages_mpol+0x1fc/0x540 [ 285.225130][T14882] folio_alloc_mpol_noprof+0x36/0x340 [ 285.227222][T14882] vma_alloc_folio_noprof+0xee/0x1a0 [ 285.229074][T14882] __handle_mm_fault+0x2b38/0x56a0 [ 285.230822][T14882] handle_mm_fault+0x368/0x9f0 ... This series fixes all issues I found so far. There is no easy way to fix without a bigger rework/cleanup. I have a bunch of cleanups on top (some previous sent, some the result of the discussion in v1) that I will send out separately once this landed and I get to it. I wish we could just use some special present PROT_NONE PTEs instead of these (non-present, non-none) fake-swap entries; but that just results in the same problem we keep having (lack of spare PTE bits), and staring at other similar fake-swap entries, that ship has sailed. With this series, make_device_exclusive() doesn't actually belong into mm/rmap.c anymore, but I'll leave moving that for another day. I only tested this series with the hmm-tests selftests due to lack of HW, so I'd appreciate some testing, especially if the interaction between two GPUs wanting a device-exclusive entry works as expected. <program> #include <stdio.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/ioctl.h> #define HMM_DMIRROR_EXCLUSIVE _IOWR('H', 0x05, struct hmm_dmirror_cmd) struct hmm_dmirror_cmd { __u64 addr; __u64 ptr; __u64 npages; __u64 cpages; __u64 faults; }; const size_t size = 1 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024ul; const size_t chunk_size = 2 * 1024 * 1024ul; int m ---truncated---

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.3% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

1. 2025-04-16 15:15 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
2. 2026-07-30 06:22 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.3% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
• Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.

Details

Published

2025-04-16 15:15 UTC

Last modified

2026-07-30 06:22 UTC

Exploit probability

0.3% · EPSS, next 30 days

Record status

Modified

Affected

• Linux Kernel < 6.12.23
• Linux Kernel < 6.13.11
• Linux Kernel < 6.14.2

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8

Attack vector

Local

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Availability

High

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2025-22034.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2025-22034. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge