CVE-2025-22045
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/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Affected Software
| Vendor | Product | Versions |
|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 4.20, < 5.4.292 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.5, < 5.10.236 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.11, < 5.15.180 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.16, < 6.1.134 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.2, < 6.6.87 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.12.23 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.13.11 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.14, < 6.14.2 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Modified
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2025-22045?
How severe is CVE-2025-22045?
How do I fix CVE-2025-22045?
Are you affected by CVE-2025-22045?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
