In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/huge_memory: fix folio isn't locked in softleaf_to_folio()
On arm64 server, we found folio that get from migration entry isn't locked in softleaf_to_folio(). This issue triggers when mTHP splitting and zap_nonpresent_ptes() races, and the root cause is lack of memory barrier in softleaf_to_folio(). The race is as follows:
CPU0 CPU1
deferred_split_scan() zap_nonpresent_ptes() lock folio split_folio() unmap_folio() change ptes to migration entries __split_folio_to_order() softleaf_to_folio() set flags(including PG_locked) for tail pages folio = pfn_folio(softleaf_to_pfn(entry)) smp_wmb() VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_locked(folio)) prep_compound_page() for tail pages
In __split_folio_to_order(), smp_wmb() guarantees page flags of tail pages are visible before the tail page becomes non-compound. smp_wmb() should be paired with smp_rmb() in softleaf_to_folio(), which is missed. As a result, if zap_nonpresent_ptes() accesses migration entry that stores tail pfn, softleaf_to_folio() may see the updated compound_head of tail page before page->flags.
This issue will trigger VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() in pfn_swap_entry_folio() because of the race between folio split and zap_nonpresent_ptes() leading to a folio incorrectly undergoing modification without a folio lock being held.
This is a BUG_ON() before commit 93976a20345b ("mm: eliminate further swapops predicates"), which in merged in v6.19-rc1.
To fix it, add missing smp_rmb() if the softleaf entry is migration entry in softleaf_to_folio() and softleaf_to_page().
[[email protected]: update function name and comments]
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 4.5 | 5.10.253 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 5.15.203 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 6.1.168 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.6.134 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.81 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.21 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.11 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc1 | 7.0-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc2 | 7.0-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc3 | 7.0-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc4 | 7.0-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc5 | 7.0-rc5.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.