CVE-2025-38389 : Detail

CVE-2025-38389

7.8
/
High
0.07%V4
Local
2025-07-25
12h53 +00:00
2025-11-03
17h37 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

drm/i915/gt: Fix timeline left held on VMA alloc error

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/i915/gt: Fix timeline left held on VMA alloc error The following error has been reported sporadically by CI when a test unbinds the i915 driver on a ring submission platform: <4> [239.330153] ------------[ cut here ]------------ <4> [239.330166] i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] drm_WARN_ON(dev_priv->mm.shrink_count) <4> [239.330196] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 18570 at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1309 i915_gem_cleanup_early+0x13e/0x150 [i915] ... <4> [239.330640] RIP: 0010:i915_gem_cleanup_early+0x13e/0x150 [i915] ... <4> [239.330942] Call Trace: <4> [239.330944] <4> [239.330949] i915_driver_late_release+0x2b/0xa0 [i915] <4> [239.331202] i915_driver_release+0x86/0xa0 [i915] <4> [239.331482] devm_drm_dev_init_release+0x61/0x90 <4> [239.331494] devm_action_release+0x15/0x30 <4> [239.331504] release_nodes+0x3d/0x120 <4> [239.331517] devres_release_all+0x96/0xd0 <4> [239.331533] device_unbind_cleanup+0x12/0x80 <4> [239.331543] device_release_driver_internal+0x23a/0x280 <4> [239.331550] ? bus_find_device+0xa5/0xe0 <4> [239.331563] device_driver_detach+0x14/0x20 ... <4> [357.719679] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- If the test also unloads the i915 module then that's followed with: <3> [357.787478] ============================================================================= <3> [357.788006] BUG i915_vma (Tainted: G U W N ): Objects remaining on __kmem_cache_shutdown() <3> [357.788031] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- <3> [357.788204] Object 0xffff888109e7f480 @offset=29824 <3> [357.788670] Allocated in i915_vma_instance+0xee/0xc10 [i915] age=292729 cpu=4 pid=2244 <4> [357.788994] i915_vma_instance+0xee/0xc10 [i915] <4> [357.789290] init_status_page+0x7b/0x420 [i915] <4> [357.789532] intel_engines_init+0x1d8/0x980 [i915] <4> [357.789772] intel_gt_init+0x175/0x450 [i915] <4> [357.790014] i915_gem_init+0x113/0x340 [i915] <4> [357.790281] i915_driver_probe+0x847/0xed0 [i915] <4> [357.790504] i915_pci_probe+0xe6/0x220 [i915] ... Closer analysis of CI results history has revealed a dependency of the error on a few IGT tests, namely: - igt@api_intel_allocator@fork-simple-stress-signal, - igt@api_intel_allocator@two-level-inception-interruptible, - igt@gem_linear_blits@interruptible, - igt@prime_mmap_coherency@ioctl-errors, which invisibly trigger the issue, then exhibited with first driver unbind attempt. All of the above tests perform actions which are actively interrupted with signals. Further debugging has allowed to narrow that scope down to DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2, and ring_context_alloc(), specific to ring submission, in particular. If successful then that function, or its execlists or GuC submission equivalent, is supposed to be called only once per GEM context engine, followed by raise of a flag that prevents the function from being called again. The function is expected to unwind its internal errors itself, so it may be safely called once more after it returns an error. In case of ring submission, the function first gets a reference to the engine's legacy timeline and then allocates a VMA. If the VMA allocation fails, e.g. when i915_vma_instance() called from inside is interrupted with a signal, then ring_context_alloc() fails, leaving the timeline held referenced. On next I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2 IOCTL, another reference to the timeline is got, and only that last one is put on successful completion. As a consequence, the legacy timeline, with its underlying engine status page's VMA object, is still held and not released on driver unbind. Get the legacy timeline only after successful allocation of the context engine's VMA. v2: Add a note on other submission methods (Krzysztof Karas): Both execlists and GuC submission use lrc_alloc() which seems free from a similar issue. (cherry picked from commit cc43422b3cc79eacff4c5a8ba0d224688ca9dd4f)

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

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.

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) 5.4 To (excluding) 5.4.296

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.240

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.187

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.144

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.97

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.37

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 11.0

References