CVE-2025-38106 : Detail

CVE-2025-38106

7.8
/
High
Memory Corruption
0.05%V4
Local
2025-07-03
08h35 +00:00
2026-07-30
05h51 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

io_uring: fix use-after-free of sq->thread in __io_uring_show_fdinfo()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring: fix use-after-free of sq->thread in __io_uring_show_fdinfo() syzbot reports: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in getrusage+0x1109/0x1a60 Read of size 8 at addr ffff88810de2d2c8 by task a.out/304 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 304 Comm: a.out Not tainted 6.16.0-rc1 #1 PREEMPT(voluntary) Hardware name: QEMU Ubuntu 24.04 PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x53/0x70 print_report+0xd0/0x670 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x10/0x10 ? getrusage+0x1109/0x1a60 kasan_report+0xce/0x100 ? getrusage+0x1109/0x1a60 getrusage+0x1109/0x1a60 ? __pfx_getrusage+0x10/0x10 __io_uring_show_fdinfo+0x9fe/0x1790 ? ksys_read+0xf7/0x1c0 ? do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 ? vsnprintf+0x591/0x1100 ? __pfx___io_uring_show_fdinfo+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_vsnprintf+0x10/0x10 ? mutex_trylock+0xcf/0x130 ? __pfx_mutex_trylock+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_show_fd_locks+0x10/0x10 ? io_uring_show_fdinfo+0x57/0x80 io_uring_show_fdinfo+0x57/0x80 seq_show+0x38c/0x690 seq_read_iter+0x3f7/0x1180 ? inode_set_ctime_current+0x160/0x4b0 seq_read+0x271/0x3e0 ? __pfx_seq_read+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10 ? __mark_inode_dirty+0x402/0x810 ? selinux_file_permission+0x368/0x500 ? file_update_time+0x10f/0x160 vfs_read+0x177/0xa40 ? __pfx___handle_mm_fault+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_vfs_read+0x10/0x10 ? mutex_lock+0x81/0xe0 ? __pfx_mutex_lock+0x10/0x10 ? fdget_pos+0x24d/0x4b0 ksys_read+0xf7/0x1c0 ? __pfx_ksys_read+0x10/0x10 ? do_user_addr_fault+0x43b/0x9c0 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f0f74170fc9 Code: 00 c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 8 RSP: 002b:00007fffece049e8 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f0f74170fc9 RDX: 0000000000001000 RSI: 00007fffece049f0 RDI: 0000000000000004 RBP: 00007fffece05ad0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007fffece04d90 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 00005651720a1100 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 Allocated by task 298: kasan_save_stack+0x33/0x60 kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70 kmem_cache_alloc_node_noprof+0xe8/0x330 copy_process+0x376/0x5e00 create_io_thread+0xab/0xf0 io_sq_offload_create+0x9ed/0xf20 io_uring_setup+0x12b0/0x1cc0 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f Freed by task 22: kasan_save_stack+0x33/0x60 kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 kasan_save_free_info+0x3b/0x60 __kasan_slab_free+0x37/0x50 kmem_cache_free+0xc4/0x360 rcu_core+0x5ff/0x19f0 handle_softirqs+0x18c/0x530 run_ksoftirqd+0x20/0x30 smpboot_thread_fn+0x287/0x6c0 kthread+0x30d/0x630 ret_from_fork+0xef/0x1a0 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 Last potentially related work creation: kasan_save_stack+0x33/0x60 kasan_record_aux_stack+0x8c/0xa0 __call_rcu_common.constprop.0+0x68/0x940 __schedule+0xff2/0x2930 __cond_resched+0x4c/0x80 mutex_lock+0x5c/0xe0 io_uring_del_tctx_node+0xe1/0x2b0 io_uring_clean_tctx+0xb7/0x160 io_uring_cancel_generic+0x34e/0x760 do_exit+0x240/0x2350 do_group_exit+0xab/0x220 __x64_sys_exit_group+0x39/0x40 x64_sys_call+0x1243/0x1840 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff88810de2cb00 which belongs to the cache task_struct of size 3712 The buggy address is located 1992 bytes inside of freed 3712-byte region [ffff88810de2cb00, ffff88810de2d980) which is caused by the task_struct pointed to by sq->thread being released while it is being used in the function __io_uring_show_fdinfo(). Holding ctx->uring_lock does not prevent ehre relase or exit of sq->thread. Fix this by assigning and looking up ->thread under RCU, and grabbing a reference to the task_struct. This e ---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.

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) 6.9 To (excluding) 6.12.34

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.3

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

References