Skip to main content

Threats Tagged 'cve-2025-68356'

View all threats tagged with 'cve-2025-68356'. Filter and sort to focus on specific types of threats.

Pro Console Lifetime

Stop chasing alerts. Route them.

Start free, then upgrade once to turn Radar into an automated delivery engine for your security stack.

Custom feeds / Automations: email, Slack, webhooks, SIEM/MISP / API access (baseline limits)

View Plans & Pricing

API access activates after upgrading in Console -> Billing.

Breach by OffSeqOFFSEQFRIENDS — 25% OFF

Check if your credentials are on the dark web

Instant breach scanning across billions of leaked records. Free tier available.

Scan now

Filter Threats

Narrow down the results by type, severity, or affected countries

Search threats by title, CVE ID, or description. Maximum 100 characters.
Active filters (1):Tag: cve-2025-68356

Threats Tagged 'cve-2025-68356'

Click on any threat for detailed analysis and mitigation recommendations

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: gfs2: Prevent recursive memory reclaim Function new_inode() returns a new inode with inode->i_mapping->gfp_mask set to GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE. This value includes the __GFP_FS flag, so allocations in that address space can recurse into filesystem memory reclaim. We don't want that to happen because it can consume a significant amount of stack memory. Worse than that is that it can also deadlock: for example, in several places, gfs2_unstuff_dinode() is called inside filesystem transactions. This calls filemap_grab_folio(), which can allocate a new folio, which can trigger memory reclaim. If memory reclaim recurses into the filesystem and starts another transaction, a deadlock will ensue. To fix these kinds of problems, prevent memory reclaim from recursing into filesystem code by making sure that the gfp_mask of inode address spaces doesn't include __GFP_FS. The "meta" and resource group address spaces were already using GFP_NOFS as their gfp_mask (which doesn't include __GFP_FS). The default value of GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE is less restrictive than GFP_NOFS, though. To avoid being overly limiting, use the default value and only knock off the __GFP_FS flag. I'm not sure if this will actually make a difference, but it also shouldn't hurt. This patch is loosely based on commit ad22c7a043c2 ("xfs: prevent stack overflows from page cache allocation"). Fixes xfstest generic/273.

Join the discussion

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 result

Filters:Tag: cve-2025-68356
Page 1 of 1
OffSeq TrainingCredly Certified

Lead Pen Test Professional

Technical5-day eLearningPECB Accredited
View courses