GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-WF4Q-Q8QJ-834V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-19 18:31 – Updated: 2025-11-18 18:32
VLAI
Details

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

mm: fix a UAF when vma->mm is freed after vma->vm_refcnt got dropped

By inducing delays in the right places, Jann Horn created a reproducer for a hard to hit UAF issue that became possible after VMAs were allowed to be recycled by adding SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU to their cache.

Race description is borrowed from Jann's discovery report: lock_vma_under_rcu() looks up a VMA locklessly with mas_walk() under rcu_read_lock(). At that point, the VMA may be concurrently freed, and it can be recycled by another process. vma_start_read() then increments the vma->vm_refcnt (if it is in an acceptable range), and if this succeeds, vma_start_read() can return a recycled VMA.

In this scenario where the VMA has been recycled, lock_vma_under_rcu() will then detect the mismatching ->vm_mm pointer and drop the VMA through vma_end_read(), which calls vma_refcount_put(). vma_refcount_put() drops the refcount and then calls rcuwait_wake_up() using a copy of vma->vm_mm. This is wrong: It implicitly assumes that the caller is keeping the VMA's mm alive, but in this scenario the caller has no relation to the VMA's mm, so the rcuwait_wake_up() can cause UAF.

The diagram depicting the race: T1 T2 T3 == == == lock_vma_under_rcu mas_walk mmap vma_start_read __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited_acquire munmap __vma_enter_locked refcount_add_not_zero vma_end_read vma_refcount_put __refcount_dec_and_test rcuwait_wait_event rcuwait_wake_up [UAF]

Note that rcuwait_wait_event() in T3 does not block because refcount was already dropped by T1. At this point T3 can exit and free the mm causing UAF in T1.

To avoid this we move vma->vm_mm verification into vma_start_read() and grab vma->vm_mm to stabilize it before vma_refcount_put() operation.

[surenb@google.com: v3]

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-38554"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-416"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-08-19T17:15:31Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nmm: fix a UAF when vma-\u003emm is freed after vma-\u003evm_refcnt got dropped\n\nBy inducing delays in the right places, Jann Horn created a reproducer for\na hard to hit UAF issue that became possible after VMAs were allowed to be\nrecycled by adding SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU to their cache.\n\nRace description is borrowed from Jann\u0027s discovery report:\nlock_vma_under_rcu() looks up a VMA locklessly with mas_walk() under\nrcu_read_lock().  At that point, the VMA may be concurrently freed, and it\ncan be recycled by another process.  vma_start_read() then increments the\nvma-\u003evm_refcnt (if it is in an acceptable range), and if this succeeds,\nvma_start_read() can return a recycled VMA.\n\nIn this scenario where the VMA has been recycled, lock_vma_under_rcu()\nwill then detect the mismatching -\u003evm_mm pointer and drop the VMA through\nvma_end_read(), which calls vma_refcount_put().  vma_refcount_put() drops\nthe refcount and then calls rcuwait_wake_up() using a copy of vma-\u003evm_mm. \nThis is wrong: It implicitly assumes that the caller is keeping the VMA\u0027s\nmm alive, but in this scenario the caller has no relation to the VMA\u0027s mm,\nso the rcuwait_wake_up() can cause UAF.\n\nThe diagram depicting the race:\nT1         T2         T3\n==         ==         ==\nlock_vma_under_rcu\n  mas_walk\n          \u003cVMA gets removed from mm\u003e\n                      mmap\n                        \u003cthe same VMA is reallocated\u003e\n  vma_start_read\n    __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited_acquire\n                      munmap\n                        __vma_enter_locked\n                          refcount_add_not_zero\n  vma_end_read\n    vma_refcount_put\n      __refcount_dec_and_test\n                          rcuwait_wait_event\n                            \u003cfinish operation\u003e\n      rcuwait_wake_up [UAF]\n\nNote that rcuwait_wait_event() in T3 does not block because refcount was\nalready dropped by T1.  At this point T3 can exit and free the mm causing\nUAF in T1.\n\nTo avoid this we move vma-\u003evm_mm verification into vma_start_read() and\ngrab vma-\u003evm_mm to stabilize it before vma_refcount_put() operation.\n\n[surenb@google.com: v3]",
  "id": "GHSA-wf4q-q8qj-834v",
  "modified": "2025-11-18T18:32:49Z",
  "published": "2025-08-19T18:31:32Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-38554"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1bcd236a2536a451e385f8d6d2bb589689ec812f"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6e88fe54721dee17d3496bc998f0c7d243896348"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9bbffee67ffd16360179327b57f3b1245579ef08"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.


Loading…