CVE-2025-21865 Detail

CVE-2025-21865

Score / Severity

5.5

Medium

CVE Descriptions

gtp: Suppress list corruption splat in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl().

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: gtp: Suppress list corruption splat in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl(). Brad Spengler reported the list_del() corruption splat in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl(). [0] Commit eb28fd76c0a0 ("gtp: Destroy device along with udp socket's netns dismantle.") added the for_each_netdev() loop in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() to destroy devices in each netns as done in geneve and ip tunnels. However, this could trigger ->dellink() twice for the same device during ->exit_batch_rtnl(). Say we have two netns A & B and gtp device B that resides in netns B but whose UDP socket is in netns A. 1. cleanup_net() processes netns A and then B. 2. gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() finds the device B while iterating netns A's gn->gtp_dev_list and calls ->dellink(). [ device B is not yet unlinked from netns B as unregister_netdevice_many() has not been called. ] 3. gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() finds the device B while iterating netns B's for_each_netdev() and calls ->dellink(). gtp_dellink() cleans up the device's hash table, unlinks the dev from gn->gtp_dev_list, and calls unregister_netdevice_queue(). Basically, calling gtp_dellink() multiple times is fine unless CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST is enabled. Let's remove for_each_netdev() in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() and delegate the destruction to default_device_exit_batch() as done in bareudp. [0]: list_del corruption, ffff8880aaa62c00->next (autoslab_size_M_dev_P_net_core_dev_11127_8_1328_8_S_4096_A_64_n_139+0xc00/0x1000 [slab object]) is LIST_POISON1 (ffffffffffffff02) (prev is 0xffffffffffffff04) kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:58! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 1804 Comm: kworker/u8:7 Tainted: G T 6.12.13-grsec-full-20250211091339 #1 Tainted: [T]=RANDSTRUCT Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: netns cleanup_net RIP: 0010:[] __list_del_entry_valid_or_report+0x141/0x200 lib/list_debug.c:58 Code: c2 76 91 31 c0 e8 9f b1 f7 fc 0f 0b 4d 89 f0 48 c7 c1 02 ff ff ff 48 89 ea 48 89 ee 48 c7 c7 e0 c2 76 91 31 c0 e8 7f b1 f7 fc <0f> 0b 4d 89 e8 48 c7 c1 04 ff ff ff 48 89 ea 48 89 ee 48 c7 c7 60 RSP: 0018:fffffe8040b4fbd0 EFLAGS: 00010283 RAX: 00000000000000cc RBX: dffffc0000000000 RCX: ffffffff818c4054 RDX: ffffffff84947381 RSI: ffffffff818d1512 RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: ffff8880aaa62c00 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: fffffbd008169f32 R10: fffffe8040b4f997 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: a1988d84f24943e4 R13: ffffffffffffff02 R14: ffffffffffffff04 R15: ffff8880aaa62c08 RBX: kasan shadow of 0x0 RCX: __wake_up_klogd.part.0+0x74/0xe0 kernel/printk/printk.c:4554 RDX: __list_del_entry_valid_or_report+0x141/0x200 lib/list_debug.c:58 RSI: vprintk+0x72/0x100 kernel/printk/printk_safe.c:71 RBP: autoslab_size_M_dev_P_net_core_dev_11127_8_1328_8_S_4096_A_64_n_139+0xc00/0x1000 [slab object] RSP: process kstack fffffe8040b4fbd0+0x7bd0/0x8000 [kworker/u8:7+netns 1804 ] R09: kasan shadow of process kstack fffffe8040b4f990+0x7990/0x8000 [kworker/u8:7+netns 1804 ] R10: process kstack fffffe8040b4f997+0x7997/0x8000 [kworker/u8:7+netns 1804 ] R15: autoslab_size_M_dev_P_net_core_dev_11127_8_1328_8_S_4096_A_64_n_139+0xc08/0x1000 [slab object] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888116000000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000748f5372c000 CR3: 0000000015408000 CR4: 00000000003406f0 shadow CR4: 00000000003406f0 Stack: 0000000000000000 ffffffff8a0c35e7 ffffffff8a0c3603 ffff8880aaa62c00 ffff8880aaa62c00 0000000000000004 ffff88811145311c 0000000000000005 0000000000000001 ffff8880aaa62000 fffffe8040b4fd40 ffffffff8a0c360d Call Trace: [] __list_del_entry_valid include/linux/list.h:131 [inline] fffffe8040b4fc28 [] __list_del_entry include/linux/list.h:248 [inline] fffffe8040b4fc28 [] list_del include/linux/list.h:262 [inl ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-787	Out-of-bounds Write The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

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 More informations 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.	nvd@nist.gov

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.