<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-28T10:28:46.356734+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-68356</id>
    <title>CVE-2025-68356 — gfs2: Prevent recursive memory reclaim</title>
    <updated>2026-09-28T10:28:46.359180+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>gfs2: Prevent recursive memory reclaim</p>
<p>Function new_inode() returns a new inode with inode-&gt;i_mapping-&gt;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This patch is loosely based on commit ad22c7a043c2 ("xfs: prevent stack
overflows from page cache allocation").</p>
<p>Fixes xfstest generic/273.</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-68356"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
