CVE-2025-38060
What it is
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: copy_verifier_state() should copy 'loop_entry' field The bpf_verifier_state.loop_entry state should be copied by copy_verifier_state(). Otherwise, .loop_entry values from unrelated states would poison env->cur_state. Additionally, env->stack should not contain any states with .loop_entry != NULL. The states in env->stack are yet to be verified, while .loop_entry is set for states that reached an equivalent state. This means that env->cur_state->loop_entry should always be NULL after pop_stack(). See the selftest in the next commit for an example of the program that is not safe yet is accepted by verifier w/o this fix. This change has some verification performance impact for selftests: File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF) ---------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------- --------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- arena_htab.bpf.o arena_htab_llvm 717 426 -291 (-40.59%) 57 37 -20 (-35.09%) arena_htab_asm.bpf.o arena_htab_asm 597 445 -152 (-25.46%) 47 37 -10 (-21.28%) arena_list.bpf.o arena_list_del 309 279 -30 (-9.71%) 23 14 -9 (-39.13%) iters.bpf.o iter_subprog_check_stacksafe 155 141 -14 (-9.03%) 15 14 -1 (-6.67%) iters.bpf.o iter_subprog_iters 1094 1003 -91 (-8.32%) 88 83 -5 (-5.68%) iters.bpf.o loop_state_deps2 479 725 +246 (+51.36%) 46 63 +17 (+36.96%) kmem_cache_iter.bpf.o open_coded_iter 63 59 -4 (-6.35%) 7 6 -1 (-14.29%) verifier_bits_iter.bpf.o max_words 92 84 -8 (-8.70%) 8 7 -1 (-12.50%) verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.o cond_break2 113 107 -6 (-5.31%) 12 12 +0 (+0.00%) And significant negative impact for sched_ext: File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF) ----------------- ---------------------- --------- --------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------------ bpf.bpf.o lavd_init 7039 14723 +7684 (+109.16%) 490 1139 +649 (+132.45%) bpf.bpf.o layered_dispatch 11485 10548 -937 (-8.16%) 848 762 -86 (-10.14%) bpf.bpf.o layered_dump 7422 1000001 +992579 (+13373.47%) 681 31178 +30497 (+4478.27%) bpf.bpf.o layered_enqueue 16854 71127 +54273 (+322.02%) 1611 6450 +4839 (+300.37%) bpf.bpf.o p2dq_dispatch 665 791 +126 (+18.95%) 68 78 +10 (+14.71%) bpf.bpf.o p2dq_init 2343 2980 +637 (+27.19%) 201 237 +36 (+17.91%) bpf.bpf.o refresh_layer_cpumasks 16487 674760 +658273 (+3992.68%) 1770 65370 +63600 (+3593.22%) bpf.bpf.o rusty_select_cpu 1937 40872 +38935 (+2010.07%) 177 3210 +3033 (+1713.56%) scx_central.bpf.o central_dispatch 636 2687 +2051 (+322.48%) 63 227 +164 (+260.32%) scx_nest.bpf.o nest_init 636 815 +179 (+28.14%) 60 73 +13 (+21.67%) scx_qmap.bpf.o qmap_dispatch ---truncated---
At a glance
- Exploitability
- Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of data exposure, data tampering, service disruption.
- Exploit odds
- 0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 0.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: 7.8 HIGH (CVSS).
- Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Record status
- Modified
Affected
- Linux Kernel < 6.12.31
- Linux Kernel < 6.14.9
Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 7.8
- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges needed
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2025-38060.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2025-38060. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
Fix and advisories
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/46ba5757a7a4714e7d3f68cfe118208822cb3d78
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8b4afd89fa75f738a80ca849126fd3cad77bcbf1
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bbbc02b7445ebfda13e4847f4f1413c6480a85a9