CVE-2025-22034 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-22034
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-22034 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕗 17 Apr 2025, 20:22 UTC
Originally published on: 🕒 16 Apr 2025, 15:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-22034 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-22034: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/gup: reject FOLL_SPLIT_PMD with hugetlb VMAs Patch series "mm: fixes for device-exclusive entries (hmm)", v2. Discussing the PageTail() call in make_device_exclusive_range() with Willy, I recently discovered [1] that device-exclusive handling does not properly work with THP, making the hmm-tests selftests fail if THPs are enabled on the system. Looking into more details, I found that hugetlb is not properly fenced, and I realized that something that was bugging me for longer -- how device-exclusive entries interact with mapcounts -- completely breaks migration/swapout/split/hwpoison handling of these folios while they have device-exclusive PTEs. The program below can be used to allocate 1 GiB worth of pages and making them device-exclusive on a kernel with CONFIG_TEST_HMM. Once they are device-exclusive, these folios cannot get swapped out (proc$pid/smaps_rollup will always indicate 1 GiB RSS no matter how much one forces memory reclaim), and when having a memory block onlined to ZONE_MOVABLE, trying to offline it will loop forever and complain about failed migration of a page that should be movable. # echo offline > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory136/state # echo online_movable > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory136/state # ./hmm-swap & ... wait until everything is device-exclusive # echo offline > /sys/devices/system/memory/memory136/state [ 285.193431][T14882] page: refcount:2 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x7f20671f7 pfn:0x442b6a [ 285.196618][T14882] memcg:ffff888179298000 [ 285.198085][T14882] anon flags: 0x5fff0000002091c(referenced|uptodate| dirty|active|owner_2|swapbacked|node=1|zone=3|lastcpupid=0x7ff) [ 285.201734][T14882] raw: ... [ 285.204464][T14882] raw: ... [ 285.207196][T14882] page dumped because: migration failure [ 285.209072][T14882] page_owner tracks the page as allocated [ 285.210915][T14882] page last allocated via order 0, migratetype Movable, gfp_mask 0x140dca(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO), id 14926, tgid 14926 (hmm-swap), ts 254506295376, free_ts 227402023774 [ 285.216765][T14882] post_alloc_hook+0x197/0x1b0 [ 285.218874][T14882] get_page_from_freelist+0x76e/0x3280 [ 285.220864][T14882] __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof+0x38e/0x2740 [ 285.223302][T14882] alloc_pages_mpol+0x1fc/0x540 [ 285.225130][T14882] folio_alloc_mpol_noprof+0x36/0x340 [ 285.227222][T14882] vma_alloc_folio_noprof+0xee/0x1a0 [ 285.229074][T14882] __handle_mm_fault+0x2b38/0x56a0 [ 285.230822][T14882] handle_mm_fault+0x368/0x9f0 ... This series fixes all issues I found so far. There is no easy way to fix without a bigger rework/cleanup. I have a bunch of cleanups on top (some previous sent, some the result of the discussion in v1) that I will send out separately once this landed and I get to it. I wish we could just use some special present PROT_NONE PTEs instead of these (non-present, non-none) fake-swap entries; but that just results in the same problem we keep having (lack of spare PTE bits), and staring at other similar fake-swap entries, that ship has sailed. With this series, make_device_exclusive() doesn't actually belong into mm/rmap.c anymore, but I'll leave moving that for another day. I only tested this series with the hmm-tests selftests due to lack of HW, so I'd appreciate some testing, especially if the interaction between two GPUs wanting a device-exclusive entry works as expected. <program> #include <stdio.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <sys/mman.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/ioctl.h> #define HMM_DMIRROR_EXCLUSIVE _IOWR('H', 0x05, struct hmm_dmirror_cmd) struct hmm_dmirror_cmd { __u64 addr; __u64 ptr; __u64 npages; __u64 cpages; __u64 faults; }; const size_t size = 1 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024ul; const size_t chunk_size = 2 * 1024 * 1024ul; int m ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-22034

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-22034 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).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-22034

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-22034.

Understanding AC and PR

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.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-22034, 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.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-22034, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-22034 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-22034 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-22034 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-22034 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-22034: Combat Critical CVE Threats

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.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-3800 – A vulnerability has been found in WCMS 11 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file app/co...
  • CVE-2025-3799 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in WCMS 11. Affected is an unknown function of the file app/controllers/AnonymousContr...
  • CVE-2025-3798 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in WCMS 11. This issue affects the function sub of the file app/admin/AdvadminCon...
  • CVE-2025-3661 – The SB Chart block plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘className’ parameter in all versions up to, and inclu...
  • CVE-2025-3404 – The Download Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the savePackage func...