CVE-2025-21674 : Detail

CVE-2025-21674

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2025-01-31
11h25 +00:00
2025-01-31
11h25 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

net/mlx5e: Fix inversion dependency warning while enabling IPsec tunnel

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix inversion dependency warning while enabling IPsec tunnel Attempt to enable IPsec packet offload in tunnel mode in debug kernel generates the following kernel panic, which is happening due to two issues: 1. In SA add section, the should be _bh() variant when marking SA mode. 2. There is not needed flush_workqueue in SA delete routine. It is not needed as at this stage as it is removed from SADB and the running work will be canceled later in SA free. ===================================================== WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected 6.12.0+ #4 Not tainted ----------------------------------------------------- charon/1337 [HC0[0]:SC0[4]:HE1:SE0] is trying to acquire: ffff88810f365020 (&xa->xa_lock#24){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_xfrm_del_state+0xca/0x1e0 [mlx5_core] and this task is already holding: ffff88813e0f0d48 (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3}, at: xfrm_state_delete+0x16/0x30 which would create a new lock dependency: (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3} -> (&xa->xa_lock#24){+.+.}-{3:3} but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock: (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3} ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at: lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x34/0x40 xfrm_timer_handler+0x91/0xd70 __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1dd/0xa60 hrtimer_run_softirq+0x146/0x2e0 handle_softirqs+0x266/0x860 irq_exit_rcu+0x115/0x1a0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x90 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 default_idle+0x13/0x20 default_idle_call+0x67/0xa0 do_idle+0x2da/0x320 cpu_startup_entry+0x50/0x60 start_secondary+0x213/0x2a0 common_startup_64+0x129/0x138 to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: (&xa->xa_lock#24){+.+.}-{3:3} ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at: ... lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 xa_set_mark+0x70/0x110 mlx5e_xfrm_add_state+0xe48/0x2290 [mlx5_core] xfrm_dev_state_add+0x3bb/0xd70 xfrm_add_sa+0x2451/0x4a90 xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x493/0x880 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12e/0x380 xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x6d/0x90 netlink_unicast+0x42f/0x740 netlink_sendmsg+0x745/0xbe0 __sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1fe/0x2c0 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x6d/0x140 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 other info that might help us debug this: Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&xa->xa_lock#24); local_irq_disable(); lock(&x->lock); lock(&xa->xa_lock#24); lock(&x->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by charon/1337: #0: ffffffff87f8f858 (&net->xfrm.xfrm_cfg_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x5e/0x90 #1: ffff88813e0f0d48 (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3}, at: xfrm_state_delete+0x16/0x30 the dependencies between SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock and the holding lock: -> (&x->lock){+.-.}-{3:3} ops: 29 { HARDIRQ-ON-W at: lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x34/0x40 xfrm_alloc_spi+0xc0/0xe60 xfrm_alloc_userspi+0x5f6/0xbc0 xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x493/0x880 netlink_rcv_skb+0x12e/0x380 xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x6d/0x90 netlink_unicast+0x42f/0x740 netlink_sendmsg+0x745/0xbe0 __sock_sendmsg+0xc5/0x190 __sys_sendto+0x1fe/0x2c0 __x64_sys_sendto+0xdc/0x1b0 do_syscall_64+0x6d/0x140 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: lock_acquire+0x1be/0x520 _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x34/0x40 xfrm_timer_handler+0x91/0xd70 __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1dd/0xa60 ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-667 Improper Locking
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

 [email protected]

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.4 To (excluding) 6.6.74

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

References