If left unpatched, CVE-2025-21932 could lead to major system disruptions or data loss.
Status: Modified
Last updated: 🕕 30 Jul 2026, 06:21 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 01 Apr 2025, 16:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 484 days
CVSS Release: version 3
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
Secondary
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVE-2025-21932: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure The remainder of vma_modify() relies upon the vmg state remaining pristine after a merge attempt. Usually this is the case, however in the one edge case scenario of a merge attempt failing not due to the specified range being unmergeable, but rather due to an out of memory error arising when attempting to commit the merge, this assumption becomes untrue. This results in vmg->start, end being modified, and thus the proceeding attempts to split the VMA will be done with invalid start/end values. Thankfully, it is likely practically impossible for us to hit this in reality, as it would require a maple tree node pre-allocation failure that would likely never happen due to it being 'too small to fail', i.e. the kernel would simply keep retrying reclaim until it succeeded. However, this scenario remains theoretically possible, and what we are doing here is wrong so we must correct it. The safest option is, when this scenario occurs, to simply give up the operation. If we cannot allocate memory to merge, then we cannot allocate memory to split either (perhaps moreso!). Any scenario where this would be happening would be under very extreme (likely fatal) memory pressure, so it's best we give up early. So there is no doubt it is appropriate to simply bail out in this scenario. However, in general we must if at all possible never assume VMG state is stable after a merge attempt, since merge operations update VMG fields. As a result, additionally also make this clear by storing start, end in local variables. The issue was reported originally by syzkaller, and by Brad Spengler (via an off-list discussion), and in both instances it manifested as a triggering of the assert: VM_WARN_ON_VMG(start >= end, vmg); In vma_merge_existing_range(). It seems at least one scenario in which this is occurring is one in which the merge being attempted is due to an madvise() across multiple VMAs which looks like this: start end |<------>| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------| When madvise_walk_vmas() is invoked, we first find vma in the above (determining prev to be equal to vma as we are offset into vma), and then enter the loop. We determine the end of vma that forms part of the range we are madvise()'ing by setting 'tmp' to this value: /* Here vma->vm_start <= start < (end|vma->vm_end) */ tmp = vma->vm_end; We then invoke the madvise() operation via visit(), letting prev get updated to point to vma as part of the operation: /* Here vma->vm_start <= start < tmp <= (end|vma->vm_end). */ error = visit(vma, &prev, start, tmp, arg); Where the visit() function pointer in this instance is madvise_vma_behavior(). As observed in syzkaller reports, it is ultimately madvise_update_vma() that is invoked, calling vma_modify_flags_name() and vma_modify() in turn. Then, in vma_modify(), we attempt the merge: merged = vma_merge_existing_range(vmg); if (merged) return merged; We invoke this with vmg->start, end set to start, tmp as such: start tmp |<--->| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------| We find ourselves in the merge right scenario, but the one in which we cannot remove the middle (we are offset into vma). Here we have a special case where vmg->start, end get set to perhaps unintuitive values - we intended to shrink the middle VMA and expand the next. This means vmg->start, end are set to... vma->vm_start, start. Now the commit_merge() fails, and vmg->start, end are left like this. This means we return to the rest of vma_modify() with vmg->start, end (here denoted as start', end') set as: start' end' |<-->| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------| So we now erroneously try to split accordingly. This is where the unfortunate ---truncated---
The exploitability of CVE-2025-21932 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
This vulnerability, CVE-2025-21932, requires a high level of attack complexity and low privileges, making it difficult but not impossible to exploit. Organizations should ensure robust security configurations to mitigate risks.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-21932, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-21932, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
NVD-CWE-noinfo
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.