Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2024-45022: Linux kernel · Out-of-bounds Write

Source GCVE Database

0
Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 22:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score
5.5Medium
How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 11 Sep 2024

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponized: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq Mirage: no evidence on record.

    No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/vmalloc: fix page mapping if vm_area_alloc_pages() with high order fallback to order 0 The __vmap_pages_range_noflush() assumes its argument pages** contains pages with the same page shift. However, since commit e9c3cda4d86e ("mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations"), if gfp_flags includes __GFP_NOFAIL with high order in vm_area_alloc_pages() and page allocation failed for high order, the pages** may contain two different page shifts (high order and order-0). This could lead __vmap_pages_range_noflush() to perform incorrect mappings, potentially resulting in memory corruption. Users might encounter this as follows (vmap_allow_huge = true, 2M is for PMD_SIZE): kvmalloc(2M, __GFP_NOFAIL|GFP_X) __vmalloc_node_range_noprof(vm_flags=VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP) vm_area_alloc_pages(order=9) ---> order-9 allocation failed and fallback to order-0 vmap_pages_range() vmap_pages_range_noflush() __vmap_pages_range_noflush(page_shift = 21) ----> wrong mapping happens We can remove the fallback code because if a high-order allocation fails, __vmalloc_node_range_noprof() will retry with order-0. Therefore, it is unnecessary to fallback to order-0 here. Therefore, fix this by removing the fallback code.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…