# CVE-2025-22045: x86/mm: Fix flush_tlb_range() when used for zapping normal PMDs

> Incorrect TLB flushing in the Linux kernel x86 memory management code could lead to stale page table entries, potentially causing system instability or security issues.

- **Severity:** High 7.8 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H`)
- **Exploited in the wild:** Not known
- **Login needed:** Any signed-in user
- **Attackable:** Local or same network only
- **Victim action needed:** Not needed
- **Fix available:** Yes
- **Published:** 16 Apr 2025
- **Updated:** 15 Oct 2026
- **Also known as:** BELL-CVE-2025-22045, DEBIAN-CVE-2025-22045, GHSA-pghg-fxcf-g9f9, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2404-CVE-2025-22045, UBUNTU-CVE-2025-22045

## What is CVE-2025-22045?

CVE-2025-22045 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 16 Apr 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.

### Official description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

x86/mm: Fix flush_tlb_range() when used for zapping normal PMDs

On the following path, flush_tlb_range() can be used for zapping normal
PMD entries (PMD entries that point to page tables) together with the PTE
entries in the pointed-to page table:

    collapse_pte_mapped_thp
      pmdp_collapse_flush
        flush_tlb_range

The arm64 version of flush_tlb_range() has a comment describing that it can
be used for page table removal, and does not use any last-level
invalidation optimizations. Fix the X86 version by making it behave the
same way.

Currently, X86 only uses this information for the following two purposes,
which I think means the issue doesn't have much impact:

 - In native_flush_tlb_multi() for checking if lazy TLB CPUs need to be
   IPI'd to avoid issues with speculative page table walks.
 - In Hyper-V TLB paravirtualization, again for lazy TLB stuff.

The patch "x86/mm: only invalidate final translations with INVLPGB" which
is currently under review (see
<https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241230175550.4046587-13-riel@surriel.com/>)
would probably be making the impact of this a lot worse.

## Which versions are affected by CVE-2025-22045?

It affects 1 product.


Products: Linux kernel.

## How do I fix CVE-2025-22045?

Apply the vendor's patch.

## Is CVE-2025-22045 being exploited?

There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-22045 in the wild and no public exploit code.

## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel

- [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild)
- [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild)

## Fix prompt for AI coding agents

```text
Check this codebase for CVE-2025-22045 and fix it if it is affected.

What it is: CVE-2025-22045 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 16 Apr 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim.
Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-22045 in the wild and no public exploit code.

Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page.

Task:
1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.
2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.
3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.
4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.
5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.

Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-22045/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-22045/index.md)
```

## Sources

- CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-22045
- NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22045
- OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2025-22045

---
From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-22045/
Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.