CVE-2025-37864
CVE Descriptions
net: dsa: clean up FDB, MDB, VLAN entries on unbind
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: clean up FDB, MDB, VLAN entries on unbind As explained in many places such as commit b117e1e8a86d ("net: dsa: delete dsa_legacy_fdb_add and dsa_legacy_fdb_del"), DSA is written given the assumption that higher layers have balanced additions/deletions. As such, it only makes sense to be extremely vocal when those assumptions are violated and the driver unbinds with entries still present. But Ido Schimmel points out a very simple situation where that is wrong: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZDazSM5UsPPjQuKr@shredder/ (also briefly discussed by me in the aforementioned commit). Basically, while the bridge bypass operations are not something that DSA explicitly documents, and for the majority of DSA drivers this API simply causes them to go to promiscuous mode, that isn't the case for all drivers. Some have the necessary requirements for bridge bypass operations to do something useful - see dsa_switch_supports_uc_filtering(). Although in tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/local_termination.sh, we made an effort to popularize better mechanisms to manage address filters on DSA interfaces from user space - namely macvlan for unicast, and setsockopt(IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP) - through mtools - for multicast, the fact is that 'bridge fdb add ... self static local' also exists as kernel UAPI, and might be useful to someone, even if only for a quick hack. It seems counter-productive to block that path by implementing shim .ndo_fdb_add and .ndo_fdb_del operations which just return -EOPNOTSUPP in order to prevent the ndo_dflt_fdb_add() and ndo_dflt_fdb_del() from running, although we could do that. Accepting that cleanup is necessary seems to be the only option. Especially since we appear to be coming back at this from a different angle as well. Russell King is noticing that the WARN_ON() triggers even for VLANs: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_li8Bj8bD4-BYKQ@shell.armlinux.org.uk/ What happens in the bug report above is that dsa_port_do_vlan_del() fails, then the VLAN entry lingers on, and then we warn on unbind and leak it. This is not a straight revert of the blamed commit, but we now add an informational print to the kernel log (to still have a way to see that bugs exist), and some extra comments gathered from past years' experience, to justify the logic.CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Reachable Assertion The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary. |
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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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 Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.18 To (excluding) 6.6.88
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.25
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.14.4
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.15
