CVE-20XX-?
agent?

CVE-2025-38334

5.5 MEDIUM 0.2% exploit odds Fix listed Other OS & kernel

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/sgx: Prevent attempts to reclaim poisoned pages TL;DR: SGX page reclaim touches the page to copy its contents to secondary storage. SGX instructions do not gracefully handle machine checks. Despite this, the existing SGX code will try to reclaim pages that it _knows_ are poisoned. Avoid even trying to reclaim poisoned pages. The longer story: Pages used by an enclave only get epc_page->poison set in arch_memory_failure() but they currently stay on sgx_active_page_list until sgx_encl_release(), with the SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED flag untouched. epc_page->poison is not checked in the reclaimer logic meaning that, if other conditions are met, an attempt will be made to reclaim an EPC page that was poisoned. This is bad because 1. we don't want that page to end up added to another enclave and 2. it is likely to cause one core to shut down and the kernel to panic. Specifically, reclaiming uses microcode operations including "EWB" which accesses the EPC page contents to encrypt and write them out to non-SGX memory. Those operations cannot handle MCEs in their accesses other than by putting the executing core into a special shutdown state (affecting both threads with HT.) The kernel will subsequently panic on the remaining cores seeing the core didn't enter MCE handler(s) in time. Call sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() to remove the affected EPC page from sgx_active_page_list on memory error to stop it being considered for reclaiming. Testing epc_page->poison in sgx_reclaim_pages() would also work but I assume it's better to add code in the less likely paths. The affected EPC page is not added to &node->sgx_poison_page_list until later in sgx_encl_release()->sgx_free_epc_page() when it is EREMOVEd. Membership on other lists doesn't change to avoid changing any of the lists' semantics except for sgx_active_page_list. There's a "TBD" comment in arch_memory_failure() about pre-emptive actions, the goal here is not to address everything that it may imply. This also doesn't completely close the time window when a memory error notification will be fatal (for a not previously poisoned EPC page) -- the MCE can happen after sgx_reclaim_pages() has selected its candidates or even *inside* a microcode operation (actually easy to trigger due to the amount of time spent in them.) The spinlock in sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() is safe because memory_failure() runs in process context and no spinlocks are held, explicitly noted in a mm/memory-failure.c comment.

At a glance

Exploitability
Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of service disruption.
Exploit odds
0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
Fix
A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

  1. PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
  2. Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

Details

Published
Last modified
Exploit probability
0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
Weakness
CWE-754
Record status
Analyzed

Affected

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 5.5

Attack vector
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges needed
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High
Raw vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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-2025-38334.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2025-38334. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

· More options · Status badge

Meme: I wake up, CVE-2025-38334
Download Square Reddit

Fix and advisories

References

NVD record · CVE.org record