CVE-2025-40251 : Detail

CVE-2025-40251

7.8
/
High
Memory Corruption
0.02%V4
Local
2025-12-04
16h08 +00:00
2026-07-30
06h01 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

devlink: rate: Unset parent pointer in devl_rate_nodes_destroy

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: devlink: rate: Unset parent pointer in devl_rate_nodes_destroy The function devl_rate_nodes_destroy is documented to "Unset parent for all rate objects". However, it was only calling the driver-specific `rate_leaf_parent_set` or `rate_node_parent_set` ops and decrementing the parent's refcount, without actually setting the `devlink_rate->parent` pointer to NULL. This leaves a dangling pointer in the `devlink_rate` struct, which cause refcount error in netdevsim[1] and mlx5[2]. In addition, this is inconsistent with the behavior of `devlink_nl_rate_parent_node_set`, where the parent pointer is correctly cleared. This patch fixes the issue by explicitly setting `devlink_rate->parent` to NULL after notifying the driver, thus fulfilling the function's documented behavior for all rate objects. [1] repro steps: echo 1 > /sys/bus/netdevsim/new_device devlink dev eswitch set netdevsim/netdevsim1 mode switchdev echo 1 > /sys/bus/netdevsim/devices/netdevsim1/sriov_numvfs devlink port function rate add netdevsim/netdevsim1/test_node devlink port function rate set netdevsim/netdevsim1/128 parent test_node echo 1 > /sys/bus/netdevsim/del_device dmesg: refcount_t: decrement hit 0; leaking memory. WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1530 at lib/refcount.c:31 refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 CPU: 8 UID: 0 PID: 1530 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.18.0-rc4+ #1 NONE Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.0-0-gd239552ce722-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 Call Trace: devl_rate_leaf_destroy+0x8d/0x90 __nsim_dev_port_del+0x6c/0x70 [netdevsim] nsim_dev_reload_destroy+0x11c/0x140 [netdevsim] nsim_drv_remove+0x2b/0xb0 [netdevsim] device_release_driver_internal+0x194/0x1f0 bus_remove_device+0xc6/0x130 device_del+0x159/0x3c0 device_unregister+0x1a/0x60 del_device_store+0x111/0x170 [netdevsim] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12e/0x1e0 vfs_write+0x215/0x3d0 ksys_write+0x5f/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x55/0x10f0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 [2] devlink dev eswitch set pci/0000:08:00.0 mode switchdev devlink port add pci/0000:08:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 1000 devlink port function rate add pci/0000:08:00.0/group1 devlink port function rate set pci/0000:08:00.0/32768 parent group1 modprobe -r mlx5_ib mlx5_fwctl mlx5_core dmesg: refcount_t: decrement hit 0; leaking memory. WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 16151 at lib/refcount.c:31 refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 16151 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.17.0-rc7_for_upstream_min_debug_2025_10_02_12_44 #1 NONE Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:refcount_warn_saturate+0x42/0xe0 Call Trace: devl_rate_leaf_destroy+0x8d/0x90 mlx5_esw_offloads_devlink_port_unregister+0x33/0x60 [mlx5_core] mlx5_esw_offloads_unload_rep+0x3f/0x50 [mlx5_core] mlx5_eswitch_unload_sf_vport+0x40/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_sf_esw_event+0xc4/0x120 [mlx5_core] notifier_call_chain+0x33/0xa0 blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x3b/0x50 mlx5_eswitch_disable_locked+0x50/0x110 [mlx5_core] mlx5_eswitch_disable+0x63/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_unload+0x1d/0x170 [mlx5_core] mlx5_uninit_one+0xa2/0x130 [mlx5_core] remove_one+0x78/0xd0 [mlx5_core] pci_device_remove+0x39/0xa0 device_release_driver_internal+0x194/0x1f0 unbind_store+0x99/0xa0 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12e/0x1e0 vfs_write+0x215/0x3d0 ksys_write+0x5f/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x53/0x1f0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-476 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

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.

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) 5.14 To (excluding) 6.1.164

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.118

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.60

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.17.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.18

References