CVE-2025-21960 : Detail

CVE-2025-21960

7.5
/
High
0.02%V4
Network
2025-04-01
15h46 +00:00
2026-07-30
05h46 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

eth: bnxt: do not update checksum in bnxt_xdp_build_skb()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: eth: bnxt: do not update checksum in bnxt_xdp_build_skb() The bnxt_rx_pkt() updates ip_summed value at the end if checksum offload is enabled. When the XDP-MB program is attached and it returns XDP_PASS, the bnxt_xdp_build_skb() is called to update skb_shared_info. The main purpose of bnxt_xdp_build_skb() is to update skb_shared_info, but it updates ip_summed value too if checksum offload is enabled. This is actually duplicate work. When the bnxt_rx_pkt() updates ip_summed value, it checks if ip_summed is CHECKSUM_NONE or not. It means that ip_summed should be CHECKSUM_NONE at this moment. But ip_summed may already be updated to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY in the XDP-MB-PASS path. So the by skb_checksum_none_assert() WARNS about it. This is duplicate work and updating ip_summed in the bnxt_xdp_build_skb() is not needed. Splat looks like: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 5782 at ./include/linux/skbuff.h:5155 bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610 [bnxt_en] Modules linked in: bnxt_re bnxt_en rdma_ucm rdma_cm iw_cm ib_cm ib_uverbs veth xt_nat xt_tcpudp xt_conntrack nft_chain_nat xt_MASQUERADE nf_] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 5782 Comm: socat Tainted: G W 6.14.0-rc4+ #27 Tainted: [W]=WARN Hardware name: ASUS System Product Name/PRIME Z690-P D4, BIOS 0603 11/01/2021 RIP: 0010:bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610 [bnxt_en] Code: 54 24 0c 4c 89 f1 4c 89 ff c1 ea 1f ff d3 0f 1f 00 49 89 c6 48 85 c0 0f 84 4c e5 ff ff 48 89 c7 e8 ca 3d a0 c8 e9 8f f4 ff ff <0f> 0b f RSP: 0018:ffff88881ba09928 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 00000000c7590303 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 1ffff1104e7d1610 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff8881c91300b8 RBP: ffff88881ba09b28 R08: ffff888273e8b0d0 R09: ffff888273e8b070 R10: ffff888273e8b010 R11: ffff888278b0f000 R12: ffff888273e8b080 R13: ffff8881c9130e00 R14: ffff8881505d3800 R15: ffff888273e8b000 FS: 00007f5a2e7be080(0000) GS:ffff88881ba00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fff2e708ff8 CR3: 000000013e3b0000 CR4: 00000000007506f0 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: ? __warn+0xcd/0x2f0 ? bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610 ? report_bug+0x326/0x3c0 ? handle_bug+0x53/0xa0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x50 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20 ? bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610 ? bnxt_rx_pkt+0x3e41/0x7610 ? __pfx_bnxt_rx_pkt+0x10/0x10 ? napi_complete_done+0x2cf/0x7d0 __bnxt_poll_work+0x4e8/0x1220 ? __pfx___bnxt_poll_work+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_mark_lock.part.0+0x10/0x10 bnxt_poll_p5+0x36a/0xfa0 ? __pfx_bnxt_poll_p5+0x10/0x10 __napi_poll.constprop.0+0xa0/0x440 net_rx_action+0x899/0xd00 ... Following ping.py patch adds xdp-mb-pass case. so ping.py is going to be able to reproduce this issue.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

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) 5.19 To (excluding) 6.1.132

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.84

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.20

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14

References