<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
    <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu</link>
    <description>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</description>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <generator>python-feedgen</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 04:52:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>CVE-2025-38008 — mm/page_alloc: fix race condition in unaccepted memory handling</title>
      <link>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-38008</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm/page_alloc: fix race condition in unaccepted memory handling&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The page allocator tracks the number of zones that have unaccepted memory
using static_branch_enc/dec() and uses that static branch in hot paths to
determine if it needs to deal with unaccepted memory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Borislav and Thomas pointed out that the tracking is racy: operations on
static_branch are not serialized against adding/removing unaccepted pages
to/from the zone.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sanity checks inside static_branch machinery detects it:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10 at kernel/jump_label.c:276 __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked+0x8e/0xa0&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The comment around the WARN() explains the problem:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;/*
	 * Warn about the &amp;#39;-1&amp;#39; case though; since that means a
	 * decrement is concurrent with a first (0-&amp;gt;1) increment. IOW
	 * people are trying to disable something that wasn&amp;#39;t yet fully
	 * enabled. This suggests an ordering problem on the user side.
	 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The effect of this static_branch optimization is only visible on
microbenchmark.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Instead of adding more complexity around it, remove it altogether.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Affected:&lt;/strong&gt; Linux&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;mm/page_alloc: fix race condition in unaccepted memory handling&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The page allocator tracks the number of zones that have unaccepted memory
using static_branch_enc/dec() and uses that static branch in hot paths to
determine if it needs to deal with unaccepted memory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Borislav and Thomas pointed out that the tracking is racy: operations on
static_branch are not serialized against adding/removing unaccepted pages
to/from the zone.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sanity checks inside static_branch machinery detects it:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 10 at kernel/jump_label.c:276 __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked+0x8e/0xa0&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The comment around the WARN() explains the problem:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;/*
	 * Warn about the &amp;#39;-1&amp;#39; case though; since that means a
	 * decrement is concurrent with a first (0-&amp;gt;1) increment. IOW
	 * people are trying to disable something that wasn&amp;#39;t yet fully
	 * enabled. This suggests an ordering problem on the user side.
	 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The effect of this static_branch optimization is only visible on
microbenchmark.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Instead of adding more complexity around it, remove it altogether.&lt;/p&gt;</content:encoded>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-38008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
