gfs2: Prevent recursive memory reclaim
Collected exploitation and prediction evidence
Risk source coverageCISA KEV is observed exploitation evidence. FIRST EPSS is a dated prediction of exploitation in the next 30 days. Missing scores are unknown. This collector requests predictions only for explicit CVE aliases in the public NuGet archive; Microsoft release views retain their existing prediction scope.
No collected risk observation for these identifiers. This does not establish absence of exploitation or a zero probability.
cve-program · CVE-2025-68356
PublishedIn 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.
- Source published
- 24 Dec 2025 10:32:46 UTC
- Source modified
- 21 Oct 2026 12:38:16 UTC
- Observed here
- 23 Oct 2026 15:48:27 UTC
- Source terms
- CVE Program Terms of Use
Original source record · Cite this exact observation · Complete original publisher JSON
This view projects the publisher's source fields for reading; the original JSON retains additional fields and CVE enrichment containers. Attribution: cve-program · CVE Program Terms of Use. Source text is retained; field grouping and change labels are provided by ChangeIntel.