CVE-2025-38334
Linux Kernel SGX: Poisoned Page Reclaimer Vulnerability
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/sgx: Prevent attempts to reclaim poisoned pages TL;DR: SGX page reclaim touches the page to copy its contents to secondary storage. SGX instructions do not gracefully handle machine checks. Despite this, the existing SGX code will try to reclaim pages that it _knows_ are poisoned. Avoid even trying to reclaim poisoned pages. The longer story: Pages used by an enclave only get epc_page->poison set in arch_memory_failure() but they currently stay on sgx_active_page_list until sgx_encl_release(), with the SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED flag untouched. epc_page->poison is not checked in the reclaimer logic meaning that, if other conditions are met, an attempt will be made to reclaim an EPC page that was poisoned. This is bad because 1. we don't want that page to end up added to another enclave and 2. it is likely to cause one core to shut down and the kernel to panic. Specifically, reclaiming uses microcode operations including "EWB" which accesses the EPC page contents to encrypt and write them out to non-SGX memory. Those operations cannot handle MCEs in their accesses other than by putting the executing core into a special shutdown state (affecting both threads with HT.) The kernel will subsequently panic on the remaining cores seeing the core didn't enter MCE handler(s) in time. Call sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() to remove the affected EPC page from sgx_active_page_list on memory error to stop it being considered for reclaiming. Testing epc_page->poison in sgx_reclaim_pages() would also work but I assume it's better to add code in the less likely paths. The affected EPC page is not added to &node->sgx_poison_page_list until later in sgx_encl_release()->sgx_free_epc_page() when it is EREMOVEd. Membership on other lists doesn't change to avoid changing any of the lists' semantics except for sgx_active_page_list. There's a "TBD" comment in arch_memory_failure() about pre-emptive actions, the goal here is not to address everything that it may imply. This also doesn't completely close the time window when a memory error notification will be fatal (for a not previously poisoned EPC page) -- the MCE can happen after sgx_reclaim_pages() has selected its candidates or even *inside* a microcode operation (actually easy to trigger due to the amount of time spent in them.) The spinlock in sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() is safe because memory_failure() runs in process context and no spinlocks are held, explicitly noted in a mm/memory-failure.c comment.
INFO
Published Date :
July 10, 2025, 9:15 a.m.
Last Modified :
July 10, 2025, 1:17 p.m.
Source :
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
Remotely Exploitable :
No
Impact Score :
Exploitability Score :
References to Advisories, Solutions, and Tools
Here, you will find a curated list of external links that provide in-depth
information, practical solutions, and valuable tools related to
CVE-2025-38334
.
We scan GitHub repositories to detect new proof-of-concept exploits. Following list is a collection of public exploits and proof-of-concepts, which have been published on GitHub (sorted by the most recently updated).
Results are limited to the first 15 repositories due to potential performance issues.
The following list is the news that have been mention
CVE-2025-38334
vulnerability anywhere in the article.
The following table lists the changes that have been made to the
CVE-2025-38334
vulnerability over time.
Vulnerability history details can be useful for understanding the evolution of a vulnerability, and for identifying the most recent changes that may impact the vulnerability's severity, exploitability, or other characteristics.
-
New CVE Received by 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
Jul. 10, 2025
Action Type Old Value New Value Added Description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/sgx: Prevent attempts to reclaim poisoned pages TL;DR: SGX page reclaim touches the page to copy its contents to secondary storage. SGX instructions do not gracefully handle machine checks. Despite this, the existing SGX code will try to reclaim pages that it _knows_ are poisoned. Avoid even trying to reclaim poisoned pages. The longer story: Pages used by an enclave only get epc_page->poison set in arch_memory_failure() but they currently stay on sgx_active_page_list until sgx_encl_release(), with the SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED flag untouched. epc_page->poison is not checked in the reclaimer logic meaning that, if other conditions are met, an attempt will be made to reclaim an EPC page that was poisoned. This is bad because 1. we don't want that page to end up added to another enclave and 2. it is likely to cause one core to shut down and the kernel to panic. Specifically, reclaiming uses microcode operations including "EWB" which accesses the EPC page contents to encrypt and write them out to non-SGX memory. Those operations cannot handle MCEs in their accesses other than by putting the executing core into a special shutdown state (affecting both threads with HT.) The kernel will subsequently panic on the remaining cores seeing the core didn't enter MCE handler(s) in time. Call sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() to remove the affected EPC page from sgx_active_page_list on memory error to stop it being considered for reclaiming. Testing epc_page->poison in sgx_reclaim_pages() would also work but I assume it's better to add code in the less likely paths. The affected EPC page is not added to &node->sgx_poison_page_list until later in sgx_encl_release()->sgx_free_epc_page() when it is EREMOVEd. Membership on other lists doesn't change to avoid changing any of the lists' semantics except for sgx_active_page_list. There's a "TBD" comment in arch_memory_failure() about pre-emptive actions, the goal here is not to address everything that it may imply. This also doesn't completely close the time window when a memory error notification will be fatal (for a not previously poisoned EPC page) -- the MCE can happen after sgx_reclaim_pages() has selected its candidates or even *inside* a microcode operation (actually easy to trigger due to the amount of time spent in them.) The spinlock in sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() is safe because memory_failure() runs in process context and no spinlocks are held, explicitly noted in a mm/memory-failure.c comment. Added Reference https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/00a88e9ea1b170d579c56327c38f7e8cf689df87 Added Reference https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/31dcbac94bfeabb86bf85b0c36803fdd6536437b Added Reference https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/62b62a2a6dc51ed6e8e334861f04220c9cf8106a Added Reference https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dc5de5bd6deabd327ced2b2b1d0b4f14cd146afe Added Reference https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ed16618c380c32c68c06186d0ccbb0d5e0586e59
CWE - Common Weakness Enumeration
While CVE identifies
specific instances of vulnerabilities, CWE categorizes the common flaws or
weaknesses that can lead to vulnerabilities. CVE-2025-38334
is
associated with the following CWEs:
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification
(CAPEC)
stores attack patterns, which are descriptions of the common attributes and
approaches employed by adversaries to exploit the CVE-2025-38334
weaknesses.