CVE-2025-21812 : Detail

CVE-2025-21812

7.8
/
High
Memory Corruption
0.05%V3
Local
2025-02-27
20h01 +00:00
2025-03-24
15h40 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

ax25: rcu protect dev->ax25_ptr

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ax25: rcu protect dev->ax25_ptr syzbot found a lockdep issue [1]. We should remove ax25 RTNL dependency in ax25_setsockopt() This should also fix a variety of possible UAF in ax25. [1] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.13.0-rc3-syzkaller-00762-g9268abe611b0 #0 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ syz.5.1818/12806 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff8fcb3988 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ax25_setsockopt+0xa55/0xe90 net/ax25/af_ax25.c:680 but task is already holding lock: ffff8880617ac258 (sk_lock-AF_AX25){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1618 [inline] ffff8880617ac258 (sk_lock-AF_AX25){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: ax25_setsockopt+0x209/0xe90 net/ax25/af_ax25.c:574 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (sk_lock-AF_AX25){+.+.}-{0:0}: lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5849 lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3642 lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1618 [inline] ax25_kill_by_device net/ax25/af_ax25.c:101 [inline] ax25_device_event+0x24d/0x580 net/ax25/af_ax25.c:146 notifier_call_chain+0x1a5/0x3f0 kernel/notifier.c:85 __dev_notify_flags+0x207/0x400 dev_change_flags+0xf0/0x1a0 net/core/dev.c:9026 dev_ifsioc+0x7c8/0xe70 net/core/dev_ioctl.c:563 dev_ioctl+0x719/0x1340 net/core/dev_ioctl.c:820 sock_do_ioctl+0x240/0x460 net/socket.c:1234 sock_ioctl+0x626/0x8e0 net/socket.c:1339 vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:906 [inline] __se_sys_ioctl+0xf5/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:892 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f -> #0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}: check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3161 [inline] check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3280 [inline] validate_chain+0x18ef/0x5920 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3904 __lock_acquire+0x1397/0x2100 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5226 lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5849 __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:585 [inline] __mutex_lock+0x1ac/0xee0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:735 ax25_setsockopt+0xa55/0xe90 net/ax25/af_ax25.c:680 do_sock_setsockopt+0x3af/0x720 net/socket.c:2324 __sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2349 [inline] __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2355 [inline] __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2352 [inline] __x64_sys_setsockopt+0x1ee/0x280 net/socket.c:2352 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(sk_lock-AF_AX25); lock(rtnl_mutex); lock(sk_lock-AF_AX25); lock(rtnl_mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by syz.5.1818/12806: #0: ffff8880617ac258 (sk_lock-AF_AX25){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1618 [inline] #0: ffff8880617ac258 (sk_lock-AF_AX25){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: ax25_setsockopt+0x209/0xe90 net/ax25/af_ax25.c:574 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 12806 Comm: syz.5.1818 Not tainted 6.13.0-rc3-syzkaller-00762-g9268abe611b0 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 09/13/2024 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:94 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x241/0x360 lib/dump_stack.c:120 print_circular_bug+0x13a/0x1b0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2074 check_noncircular+0x36a/0x4a0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2206 check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3161 [inline] check_prevs_add kernel/lockin ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-416 Use After Free
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

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

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

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) 3.18.132 To (excluding) 3.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.4.170 To (excluding) 4.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.9.149 To (excluding) 4.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.14.92 To (excluding) 4.15

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.19.14 To (excluding) 4.20

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20.1 To (excluding) 6.1.129

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.76

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.2

References