CVE-2025-40250:详情

CVE-2025-40250

7.8
/
高危
0.03%V4
2025-12-04
16h08 +00:00
Local
2026-10-15
22h02 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
随时了解指定 CVE 的变更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

net/mlx5: Clean up only new IRQ glue on request_irq() failure

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: Clean up only new IRQ glue on request_irq() failure The mlx5_irq_alloc() function can inadvertently free the entire rmap and end up in a crash[1] when the other threads tries to access this, when request_irq() fails due to exhausted IRQ vectors. This commit modifies the cleanup to remove only the specific IRQ mapping that was just added. This prevents removal of other valid mappings and ensures precise cleanup of the failed IRQ allocation's associated glue object. Note: This error is observed when both fwctl and rds configs are enabled. [1] mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: Successfully registered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 66740): Failed to request irq. err = -28 infiniband mlx5_0: mlx5_ib_test_wc:290:(pid 66740): Error -28 while trying to test write-combining support mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: Successfully unregistered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:06:00.0: Successfully registered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:06:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 66740): Failed to request irq. err = -28 infiniband mlx5_0: mlx5_ib_test_wc:290:(pid 66740): Error -28 while trying to test write-combining support mlx5_core 0000:06:00.0: Successfully unregistered panic handler for port 1 mlx5_core 0000:03:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 28895): Failed to request irq. err = -28 mlx5_core 0000:05:00.0: mlx5_irq_alloc:293:(pid 28895): Failed to request irq. err = -28 general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xe277a58fde16f291: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI RIP: 0010:free_irq_cpu_rmap+0x23/0x7d Call Trace: ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1d6/0x2f9 ? show_trace_log_lvl+0x1d6/0x2f9 ? mlx5_irq_alloc.cold+0x5d/0xf3 [mlx5_core] ? __die_body.cold+0x8/0xa ? die_addr+0x39/0x53 ? exc_general_protection+0x1c4/0x3e9 ? dev_vprintk_emit+0x5f/0x90 ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x22/0x27 ? free_irq_cpu_rmap+0x23/0x7d mlx5_irq_alloc.cold+0x5d/0xf3 [mlx5_core] irq_pool_request_vector+0x7d/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5_irq_request+0x2e/0xe0 [mlx5_core] mlx5_irq_request_vector+0xad/0xf7 [mlx5_core] comp_irq_request_pci+0x64/0xf0 [mlx5_core] create_comp_eq+0x71/0x385 [mlx5_core] ? mlx5e_open_xdpsq+0x11c/0x230 [mlx5_core] mlx5_comp_eqn_get+0x72/0x90 [mlx5_core] ? xas_load+0x8/0x91 mlx5_comp_irqn_get+0x40/0x90 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open_channel+0x7d/0x3c7 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open_channels+0xad/0x250 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open_locked+0x3e/0x110 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_open+0x23/0x70 [mlx5_core] __dev_open+0xf1/0x1a5 __dev_change_flags+0x1e1/0x249 dev_change_flags+0x21/0x5c do_setlink+0x28b/0xcc4 ? __nla_parse+0x22/0x3d ? inet6_validate_link_af+0x6b/0x108 ? cpumask_next+0x1f/0x35 ? __snmp6_fill_stats64.constprop.0+0x66/0x107 ? __nla_validate_parse+0x48/0x1e6 __rtnl_newlink+0x5ff/0xa57 ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x164/0x2ce rtnl_newlink+0x44/0x6e rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x2bb/0x362 ? __netlink_sendskb+0x4c/0x6c ? netlink_unicast+0x28f/0x2ce ? rtnl_calcit.isra.0+0x150/0x146 netlink_rcv_skb+0x5f/0x112 netlink_unicast+0x213/0x2ce netlink_sendmsg+0x24f/0x4d9 __sock_sendmsg+0x65/0x6a ____sys_sendmsg+0x28f/0x2c9 ? import_iovec+0x17/0x2b ___sys_sendmsg+0x97/0xe0 __sys_sendmsg+0x81/0xd8 do_syscall_64+0x35/0x87 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x0 RIP: 0033:0x7fc328603727 Code: c3 66 90 41 54 41 89 d4 55 48 89 f5 53 89 fb 48 83 ec 10 e8 0b ed ff ff 44 89 e2 48 89 ee 89 df 41 89 c0 b8 2e 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 35 44 89 c7 48 89 44 24 08 e8 44 ed ff ff 48 RSP: 002b:00007ffe8eb3f1a0 EFLAGS: 00000293 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002e RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000000000d RCX: 00007fc328603727 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00007ffe8eb3f1f0 RDI: 000000000000000d RBP: 00007ffe8eb3f1f0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000293 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 00000000000 ---truncated---

CVE 信息

指标

指标 评分 严重程度 CVSS 向量 来源
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.

EPSS

EPSS 是一种预测漏洞被利用可能性的评分模型。

EPSS 评分

EPSS 模型生成一个介于 0 到 1(即 0% 到 100%)之间的概率评分。评分越高,漏洞被利用的可能性越大。

EPSS 百分位

百分位用于根据 EPSS 评分对 CVE 进行排名。例如,EPSS 百分位为第 95 的 CVE,其被利用的可能性高于 95% 的其他 CVE。因此,百分位可用于比较不同 CVE 的 EPSS 评分。

参考资料