CVE-2025-22045

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.18%

Last modified

CVE-2025-22045 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mm: Fix flush_tlb_range() when used for zapping normal PMDs On the following path, flush_tlb_range() can be used for zapping normal PMD entries (PMD entries that point to page tables) together with the PTE entries in the pointed-to page table: collapse_pte_mapped_thp pmdp_collapse_flush flush_tlb_range The arm64 version of flush_tlb_range() has a comment describing that it can be used for page table removal, and does not use any last-level invalidation optimizations. Fix the X86 version by making it behave the same way. Currently, X86 only uses this information for the following two purposes, which I think means the issue doesn't have much impact: - In native_flush_tlb_multi() for checking if lazy TLB CPUs need to be IPI'd to avoid issues with speculative page table walks. - In Hyper-V TLB paravirtualization, again for lazy TLB stuff. The patch "x86/mm: only invalidate final translations with INVLPGB" which is currently under review (see <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241230175550.4046587-13-riel@surriel.com/>) would probably be making the impact of this a lot worse.. EPSS estimates a 0.18% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mm: Fix flush_tlb_range() when used for zapping normal PMDs On the following path, flush_tlb_range() can be used for zapping normal PMD entries (PMD entries that point to page tables) together with the PTE entries in the pointed-to page table: collapse_pte_mapped_thp pmdp_collapse_flush flush_tlb_range The arm64 version of flush_tlb_range() has a comment describing that it can be used for page table removal, and does not use any last-level invalidation optimizations. Fix the X86 version by making it behave the same way. Currently, X86 only uses this information for the following two purposes, which I think means the issue doesn't have much impact: - In native_flush_tlb_multi() for checking if lazy TLB CPUs need to be IPI'd to avoid issues with speculative page table walks. - In Hyper-V TLB paravirtualization, again for lazy TLB stuff. The patch "x86/mm: only invalidate final translations with INVLPGB" which is currently under review (see <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241230175550.4046587-13-riel@surriel.com/>) would probably be making the impact of this a lot worse.

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
5.5/10

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS Probability
0.18%

7.3th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 4.20, < 5.4.292
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.5, < 5.10.236
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.11, < 5.15.180
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.16, < 6.1.134
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.2, < 6.6.87
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.7, < 6.12.23
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.13.11
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.14, < 6.14.2

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Modified

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-22045?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mm: Fix flush_tlb_range() when used for zapping normal PMDs On the following path, flush_tlb_range() can be used for zapping normal PMD entries (PMD entries that point to page tables) together with the PTE entries in the pointed-to page table: collapse_pte_mapped_thp pmdp_collapse_flush flush_tlb_range The arm64 version of flush_tlb_range() has a comment describing that it can be used for page table removal, and does not use any last-level invalidation optimizations. Fix the X86 version by making it behave the same way. Currently, X86 only uses this information for the following two purposes, which I think means the issue doesn't have much impact: - In native_flush_tlb_multi() for checking if lazy TLB CPUs need to be IPI'd to avoid issues with speculative page table walks. - In Hyper-V TLB paravirtualization, again for lazy TLB stuff. The patch "x86/mm: only invalidate final translations with INVLPGB" which is currently under review (see <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241230175550.4046587-13-riel@surriel.com/>) would probably be making the impact of this a lot worse.
How severe is CVE-2025-22045?
CVE-2025-22045 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.18% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2025-22045?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

Are you affected by CVE-2025-22045?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST