CVE-2025-38196 : Detail

CVE-2025-38196

5.5
/
Medium
0.07%V4
Local
2025-07-04
13h37 +00:00
2025-07-28
04h14 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

io_uring/rsrc: validate buffer count with offset for cloning

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring/rsrc: validate buffer count with offset for cloning syzbot reports that it can trigger a WARN_ON() for kmalloc() attempt that's too big: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6488 at mm/slub.c:5024 __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x520/0x640 mm/slub.c:5024 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6488 Comm: syz-executor312 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc7-syzkaller-gd7fa1af5b33e #0 PREEMPT Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 05/07/2025 pstate: 20400005 (nzCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x520/0x640 mm/slub.c:5024 lr : __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:-1 [inline] lr : __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x3b4/0x640 mm/slub.c:5012 sp : ffff80009cfd7a90 x29: ffff80009cfd7ac0 x28: ffff0000dd52a120 x27: 0000000000412dc0 x26: 0000000000000178 x25: ffff7000139faf70 x24: 0000000000000000 x23: ffff800082f4cea8 x22: 00000000ffffffff x21: 000000010cd004a8 x20: ffff0000d75816c0 x19: ffff0000dd52a000 x18: 00000000ffffffff x17: ffff800092f39000 x16: ffff80008adbe9e4 x15: 0000000000000005 x14: 1ffff000139faf1c x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000 x11: ffff7000139faf21 x10: 0000000000000003 x9 : ffff80008f27b938 x8 : 0000000000000002 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000000 x5 : 00000000ffffffff x4 : 0000000000400dc0 x3 : 0000000200000000 x2 : 000000010cd004a8 x1 : ffff80008b3ebc40 x0 : 0000000000000001 Call trace: __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x520/0x640 mm/slub.c:5024 (P) kvmalloc_array_node_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1065 [inline] io_rsrc_data_alloc io_uring/rsrc.c:206 [inline] io_clone_buffers io_uring/rsrc.c:1178 [inline] io_register_clone_buffers+0x484/0xa14 io_uring/rsrc.c:1287 __io_uring_register io_uring/register.c:815 [inline] __do_sys_io_uring_register io_uring/register.c:926 [inline] __se_sys_io_uring_register io_uring/register.c:903 [inline] __arm64_sys_io_uring_register+0x42c/0xea8 io_uring/register.c:903 __invoke_syscall arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:35 [inline] invoke_syscall+0x98/0x2b8 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:49 el0_svc_common+0x130/0x23c arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:132 do_el0_svc+0x48/0x58 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:151 el0_svc+0x58/0x17c arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:767 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x78/0x108 arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:786 el0t_64_sync+0x198/0x19c arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:600 which is due to offset + buffer_count being too large. The registration code checks only the total count of buffers, but given that the indexing is an array, it should also check offset + count. That can't exceed IORING_MAX_REG_BUFFERS either, as there's no way to reach buffers beyond that limit. There's no issue with registrering a table this large, outside of the fact that it's pointless to register buffers that cannot be reached, and that it can trigger this kmalloc() warning for attempting an allocation that is too large.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

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

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) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.4

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

References