CVE-2025-39739 : Detail

CVE-2025-39739

5.5
/
Medium
0.02%V4
Local
2025-09-11
16h52 +00:00
2025-09-29
05h58 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Add SM6115 MDSS compatible

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Add SM6115 MDSS compatible Add the SM6115 MDSS compatible to clients compatible list, as it also needs that workaround. Without this workaround, for example, QRB4210 RB2 which is based on SM4250/SM6115 generates a lot of smmu unhandled context faults during boot: arm_smmu_context_fault: 116854 callbacks suppressed arm-smmu c600000.iommu: Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x402, iova=0x5c0ec600, fsynr=0x320021, cbfrsynra=0x420, cb=5 arm-smmu c600000.iommu: FSR = 00000402 [Format=2 TF], SID=0x420 arm-smmu c600000.iommu: FSYNR0 = 00320021 [S1CBNDX=50 PNU PLVL=1] arm-smmu c600000.iommu: Unhandled context fault: fsr=0x402, iova=0x5c0d7800, fsynr=0x320021, cbfrsynra=0x420, cb=5 arm-smmu c600000.iommu: FSR = 00000402 [Format=2 TF], SID=0x420 and also failed initialisation of lontium lt9611uxc, gpu and dpu is observed: (binding MDSS components triggered by lt9611uxc have failed) ------------[ cut here ]------------ !aspace WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 324 at drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_vma.c:130 msm_gem_vma_init+0x150/0x18c [msm] Modules linked in: ... (long list of modules) CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 324 Comm: (udev-worker) Not tainted 6.15.0-03037-gaacc73ceeb8b #4 PREEMPT Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. QRB4210 RB2 (DT) pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : msm_gem_vma_init+0x150/0x18c [msm] lr : msm_gem_vma_init+0x150/0x18c [msm] sp : ffff80008144b280 ... Call trace: msm_gem_vma_init+0x150/0x18c [msm] (P) get_vma_locked+0xc0/0x194 [msm] msm_gem_get_and_pin_iova_range+0x4c/0xdc [msm] msm_gem_kernel_new+0x48/0x160 [msm] msm_gpu_init+0x34c/0x53c [msm] adreno_gpu_init+0x1b0/0x2d8 [msm] a6xx_gpu_init+0x1e8/0x9e0 [msm] adreno_bind+0x2b8/0x348 [msm] component_bind_all+0x100/0x230 msm_drm_bind+0x13c/0x3d0 [msm] try_to_bring_up_aggregate_device+0x164/0x1d0 __component_add+0xa4/0x174 component_add+0x14/0x20 dsi_dev_attach+0x20/0x34 [msm] dsi_host_attach+0x58/0x98 [msm] devm_mipi_dsi_attach+0x34/0x90 lt9611uxc_attach_dsi.isra.0+0x94/0x124 [lontium_lt9611uxc] lt9611uxc_probe+0x540/0x5fc [lontium_lt9611uxc] i2c_device_probe+0x148/0x2a8 really_probe+0xbc/0x2c0 __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x120 driver_probe_device+0x3c/0x154 __driver_attach+0x90/0x1a0 bus_for_each_dev+0x68/0xb8 driver_attach+0x24/0x30 bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x208 driver_register+0x68/0x124 i2c_register_driver+0x48/0xcc lt9611uxc_driver_init+0x20/0x1000 [lontium_lt9611uxc] do_one_initcall+0x60/0x1d4 do_init_module+0x54/0x1fc load_module+0x1748/0x1c8c init_module_from_file+0x74/0xa0 __arm64_sys_finit_module+0x130/0x2f8 invoke_syscall+0x48/0x104 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xc0/0xe0 do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28 el0_svc+0x2c/0x80 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x10c/0x138 el0t_64_sync+0x198/0x19c ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- msm_dpu 5e01000.display-controller: [drm:msm_gpu_init [msm]] *ERROR* could not allocate memptrs: -22 msm_dpu 5e01000.display-controller: failed to load adreno gpu platform a400000.remoteproc:glink-edge:apr:service@7:dais: Adding to iommu group 19 msm_dpu 5e01000.display-controller: failed to bind 5900000.gpu (ops a3xx_ops [msm]): -22 msm_dpu 5e01000.display-controller: adev bind failed: -22 lt9611uxc 0-002b: failed to attach dsi to host lt9611uxc 0-002b: probe with driver lt9611uxc failed with error -22

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.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.103

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.43

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.16 To (excluding) 6.16.2

References

The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.