CVE-2025-22089 : Detail

CVE-2025-22089

7.8
/
High
Memory Corruption
0.02%V4
Local
2025-04-16
14h12 +00:00
2026-07-30
05h48 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

RDMA/core: Don't expose hw_counters outside of init net namespace

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: RDMA/core: Don't expose hw_counters outside of init net namespace Commit 467f432a521a ("RDMA/core: Split port and device counter sysfs attributes") accidentally almost exposed hw counters to non-init net namespaces. It didn't expose them fully, as an attempt to read any of those counters leads to a crash like this one: [42021.807566] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000028 [42021.814463] #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode [42021.819549] #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page [42021.824636] PGD 0 P4D 0 [42021.827145] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI [42021.830598] CPU: 82 PID: 2843922 Comm: switchto-defaul Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S W I XXX [42021.841697] Hardware name: XXX [42021.849619] RIP: 0010:hw_stat_device_show+0x1e/0x40 [ib_core] [42021.855362] Code: 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 49 89 d0 4c 8b 5e 20 48 8b 8f b8 04 00 00 48 81 c7 f0 fa ff ff <48> 8b 41 28 48 29 ce 48 83 c6 d0 48 c1 ee 04 69 d6 ab aa aa aa 48 [42021.873931] RSP: 0018:ffff97fe90f03da0 EFLAGS: 00010287 [42021.879108] RAX: ffff9406988a8c60 RBX: ffff940e1072d438 RCX: 0000000000000000 [42021.886169] RDX: ffff94085f1aa000 RSI: ffff93c6cbbdbcb0 RDI: ffff940c7517aef0 [42021.893230] RBP: ffff97fe90f03e70 R08: ffff94085f1aa000 R09: 0000000000000000 [42021.900294] R10: ffff94085f1aa000 R11: ffffffffc0775680 R12: ffffffff87ca2530 [42021.907355] R13: ffff940651602840 R14: ffff93c6cbbdbcb0 R15: ffff94085f1aa000 [42021.914418] FS: 00007fda1a3b9700(0000) GS:ffff94453fb80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [42021.922423] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [42021.928130] CR2: 0000000000000028 CR3: 00000042dcfb8003 CR4: 00000000003726f0 [42021.935194] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [42021.942257] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [42021.949324] Call Trace: [42021.951756] [42021.953842] [] ? show_regs+0x64/0x70 [42021.959030] [] ? __die+0x78/0xc0 [42021.963874] [] ? page_fault_oops+0x2b5/0x3b0 [42021.969749] [] ? exc_page_fault+0x1a2/0x3c0 [42021.975549] [] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 [42021.981517] [] ? __pfx_show_hw_stats+0x10/0x10 [ib_core] [42021.988482] [] ? hw_stat_device_show+0x1e/0x40 [ib_core] [42021.995438] [] dev_attr_show+0x1e/0x50 [42022.000803] [] sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x81/0xe0 [42022.006508] [] seq_read_iter+0xf4/0x410 [42022.011954] [] vfs_read+0x16e/0x2f0 [42022.017058] [] ksys_read+0x6e/0xe0 [42022.022073] [] do_syscall_64+0x6a/0xa0 [42022.027441] [] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2 The problem can be reproduced using the following steps: ip netns add foo ip netns exec foo bash cat /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/hw_counters/* The panic occurs because of casting the device pointer into an ib_device pointer using container_of() in hw_stat_device_show() is wrong and leads to a memory corruption. However the real problem is that hw counters should never been exposed outside of the non-init net namespace. Fix this by saving the index of the corresponding attribute group (it might be 1 or 2 depending on the presence of driver-specific attributes) and zeroing the pointer to hw_counters group for compat devices during the initialization. With this fix applied hw_counters are not available in a non-init net namespace: find /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ -name hw_counters /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ports/1/hw_counters /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ports/2/hw_counters /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/hw_counters ip netns add foo ip netns exec foo bash find /sys/class/infiniband/mlx4_0/ -name hw_counters

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 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.

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.

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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.14 To (excluding) 5.15.180

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.134

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.87

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.23

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.14 To (excluding) 6.14.2

References