CVE-2025-21675 : Detail

CVE-2025-21675

5.5
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
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/mlx5: Clear port select structure when fail to create

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: Clear port select structure when fail to create Clear the port select structure on error so no stale values left after definers are destroyed. That's because the mlx5_lag_destroy_definers() always try to destroy all lag definers in the tt_map, so in the flow below lag definers get double-destroyed and cause kernel crash: mlx5_lag_port_sel_create() mlx5_lag_create_definers() mlx5_lag_create_definer() <- Failed on tt 1 mlx5_lag_destroy_definers() <- definers[tt=0] gets destroyed mlx5_lag_port_sel_create() mlx5_lag_create_definers() mlx5_lag_create_definer() <- Failed on tt 0 mlx5_lag_destroy_definers() <- definers[tt=0] gets double-destroyed Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008 Mem abort info: ESR = 0x0000000096000005 EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits SET = 0, FnV = 0 EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 FSC = 0x05: level 1 translation fault Data abort info: ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000005, ISS2 = 0x00000000 CM = 0, WnR = 0, TnD = 0, TagAccess = 0 GCS = 0, Overlay = 0, DirtyBit = 0, Xs = 0 user pgtable: 64k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=0000000112ce2e00 [0000000000000008] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000, pud=0000000000000000 Internal error: Oops: 0000000096000005 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Modules linked in: iptable_raw bonding ip_gre ip6_gre gre ip6_tunnel tunnel6 geneve ip6_udp_tunnel udp_tunnel ipip tunnel4 ip_tunnel rdma_ucm(OE) rdma_cm(OE) iw_cm(OE) ib_ipoib(OE) ib_cm(OE) ib_umad(OE) mlx5_ib(OE) ib_uverbs(OE) mlx5_fwctl(OE) fwctl(OE) mlx5_core(OE) mlxdevm(OE) ib_core(OE) mlxfw(OE) memtrack(OE) mlx_compat(OE) openvswitch nsh nf_conncount psample xt_conntrack xt_MASQUERADE nf_conntrack_netlink nfnetlink xfrm_user xfrm_algo xt_addrtype iptable_filter iptable_nat nf_nat nf_conntrack nf_defrag_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv4 br_netfilter bridge stp llc netconsole overlay efi_pstore sch_fq_codel zram ip_tables crct10dif_ce qemu_fw_cfg fuse ipv6 crc_ccitt [last unloaded: mlx_compat(OE)] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 217 Comm: kworker/u53:2 Tainted: G OE 6.11.0+ #2 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 Workqueue: mlx5_lag mlx5_do_bond_work [mlx5_core] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : mlx5_del_flow_rules+0x24/0x2c0 [mlx5_core] lr : mlx5_lag_destroy_definer+0x54/0x100 [mlx5_core] sp : ffff800085fafb00 x29: ffff800085fafb00 x28: ffff0000da0c8000 x27: 0000000000000000 x26: ffff0000da0c8000 x25: ffff0000da0c8000 x24: ffff0000da0c8000 x23: ffff0000c31f81a0 x22: 0400000000000000 x21: ffff0000da0c8000 x20: 0000000000000000 x19: 0000000000000001 x18: 0000000000000000 x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: 0000ffff8b0c9350 x14: 0000000000000000 x13: ffff800081390d18 x12: ffff800081dc3cc0 x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000000b10 x9 : ffff80007ab7304c x8 : ffff0000d00711f0 x7 : 0000000000000004 x6 : 0000000000000190 x5 : ffff00027edb3010 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : ffff0000d39b8000 x1 : ffff0000d39b8000 x0 : 0400000000000000 Call trace: mlx5_del_flow_rules+0x24/0x2c0 [mlx5_core] mlx5_lag_destroy_definer+0x54/0x100 [mlx5_core] mlx5_lag_destroy_definers+0xa0/0x108 [mlx5_core] mlx5_lag_port_sel_create+0x2d4/0x6f8 [mlx5_core] mlx5_activate_lag+0x60c/0x6f8 [mlx5_core] mlx5_do_bond_work+0x284/0x5c8 [mlx5_core] process_one_work+0x170/0x3e0 worker_thread+0x2d8/0x3e0 kthread+0x11c/0x128 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: a9025bf5 aa0003f6 a90363f7 f90023f9 (f9400400) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.127

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 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