CVE-2025-38475
CVE Descriptions
smc: Fix various oops due to inet_sock type confusion.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smc: Fix various oops due to inet_sock type confusion. syzbot reported weird splats [0][1] in cipso_v4_sock_setattr() while freeing inet_sk(sk)->inet_opt. The address was freed multiple times even though it was read-only memory. cipso_v4_sock_setattr() did nothing wrong, and the root cause was type confusion. The cited commit made it possible to create smc_sock as an INET socket. The issue is that struct smc_sock does not have struct inet_sock as the first member but hijacks AF_INET and AF_INET6 sk_family, which confuses various places. In this case, inet_sock.inet_opt was actually smc_sock.clcsk_data_ready(), which is an address of a function in the text segment. $ pahole -C inet_sock vmlinux struct inet_sock { ... struct ip_options_rcu * inet_opt; /* 784 8 */ $ pahole -C smc_sock vmlinux struct smc_sock { ... void (*clcsk_data_ready)(struct sock *); /* 784 8 */ The same issue for another field was reported before. [2][3] At that time, an ugly hack was suggested [4], but it makes both INET and SMC code error-prone and hard to change. Also, yet another variant was fixed by a hacky commit 98d4435efcbf3 ("net/smc: prevent NULL pointer dereference in txopt_get"). Instead of papering over the root cause by such hacks, we should not allow non-INET socket to reuse the INET infra. Let's add inet_sock as the first member of smc_sock. [0]: kvfree_call_rcu(): Double-freed call. rcu_head 000000006921da73 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6718 at mm/slab_common.c:1956 kvfree_call_rcu+0x94/0x3f0 mm/slab_common.c:1955 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6718 Comm: syz.0.17 Tainted: G W 6.16.0-rc4-syzkaller-g7482bb149b9f #0 PREEMPT Tainted: [W]=WARN Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 05/07/2025 pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : kvfree_call_rcu+0x94/0x3f0 mm/slab_common.c:1955 lr : kvfree_call_rcu+0x94/0x3f0 mm/slab_common.c:1955 sp : ffff8000a03a7730 x29: ffff8000a03a7730 x28: 00000000fffffff5 x27: 1fffe000184823d3 x26: dfff800000000000 x25: ffff0000c2411e9e x24: ffff0000dd88da00 x23: ffff8000891ac9a0 x22: 00000000ffffffea x21: ffff8000891ac9a0 x20: ffff8000891ac9a0 x19: ffff80008afc2480 x18: 00000000ffffffff x17: 0000000000000000 x16: ffff80008ae642c8 x15: ffff700011ede14c x14: 1ffff00011ede14c x13: 0000000000000004 x12: ffffffffffffffff x11: ffff700011ede14c x10: 0000000000ff0100 x9 : 5fa3c1ffaf0ff000 x8 : 5fa3c1ffaf0ff000 x7 : 0000000000000001 x6 : 0000000000000001 x5 : ffff8000a03a7078 x4 : ffff80008f766c20 x3 : ffff80008054d360 x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000201 x0 : 0000000000000000 Call trace: kvfree_call_rcu+0x94/0x3f0 mm/slab_common.c:1955 (P) cipso_v4_sock_setattr+0x2f0/0x3f4 net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c:1914 netlbl_sock_setattr+0x240/0x334 net/netlabel/netlabel_kapi.c:1000 smack_netlbl_add+0xa8/0x158 security/smack/smack_lsm.c:2581 smack_inode_setsecurity+0x378/0x430 security/smack/smack_lsm.c:2912 security_inode_setsecurity+0x118/0x3c0 security/security.c:2706 __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x174/0x5c4 fs/xattr.c:251 __vfs_setxattr_locked+0x1ec/0x218 fs/xattr.c:295 vfs_setxattr+0x158/0x2ac fs/xattr.c:321 do_setxattr fs/xattr.c:636 [inline] file_setxattr+0x1b8/0x294 fs/xattr.c:646 path_setxattrat+0x2ac/0x320 fs/xattr.c:711 __do_sys_fsetxattr fs/xattr.c:761 [inline] __se_sys_fsetxattr fs/xattr.c:758 [inline] __arm64_sys_fsetxattr+0xc0/0xdc fs/xattr.c:758 __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+0x58/0x180 arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:879 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x84/0x12c arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:898 el0t_64_sync+0x198/0x19c arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:600 [ ---truncated---CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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. 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 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. |
|
| 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) 6.11 To (excluding) 6.12.40
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.8
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
