In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/vmscan: fix hwpoisoned large folio handling in shrink_folio_list
In shrink_folio_list(), the hwpoisoned folio may be large folio, which can't be handled by unmap_poisoned_folio(). For THP, try_to_unmap_one() must be passed with TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD to split huge PMD first and then retry. Without TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD, we will trigger null-ptr deref of pvmw.pte. Even we passed TTU_SPLIT_HUGE_PMD, we will trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE due to the page isn't in swapcache.
Since UCE is rare in real world, and race with reclaimation is more rare, just skipping the hwpoisoned large folio is enough. memory_failure() will handle it if the UCE is triggered again.
This happens when memory reclaim for large folio races with memory_failure(), and will lead to kernel panic. The race is as follows:
cpu0 cpu1 shrink_folio_list memory_failure TestSetPageHWPoison unmap_poisoned_folio --> trigger BUG_ON due to unmap_poisoned_folio couldn't handle large folio
[[email protected]: add comment to unmap_poisoned_folio()]
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.12.26 | 6.12.41 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.14.5 | 6.15.9 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc1 | 6.16-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc2 | 6.16-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc3 | 6.16-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc4 | 6.16-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc5 | 6.16-rc5.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc6 | 6.16-rc6.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.16-rc7 | 6.16-rc7.x |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.