CVE-2025-39915

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: phy: transfer phy_config_inband() locking responsibility to phylink Problem description =================== Lockdep reports a possible circular locking dependency (AB/BA) between &pl->state_mutex and &phy->lock, as follows. phylink_resolve() // acquires &pl->state_mutex -> phylink_major_config() -> phy_config_inband() // acquires &pl->phydev->lock whereas all the other call sites where &pl->state_mutex and &pl->phydev->lock have the locking scheme reversed. Everywhere else, &pl->phydev->lock is acquired at the top level, and &pl->state_mutex at the lower level. A clear example is phylink_bringup_phy(). The outlier is the newly introduced phy_config_inband() and the existing lock order is the correct one. To understand why it cannot be the other way around, it is sufficient to consider phylink_phy_change(), phylink's callback from the PHY device's phy->phy_link_change() virtual method, invoked by the PHY state machine. phy_link_up() and phy_link_down(), the (indirect) callers of phylink_phy_change(), are called with &phydev->lock acquired. Then phylink_phy_change() acquires its own &pl->state_mutex, to serialize changes made to its pl->phy_state and pl->link_config. So all other instances of &pl->state_mutex and &phydev->lock must be consistent with this order. Problem impact ============== I think the kernel runs a serious deadlock risk if an existing phylink_resolve() thread, which results in a phy_config_inband() call, is concurrent with a phy_link_up() or phy_link_down() call, which will deadlock on &pl->state_mutex in phylink_phy_change(). Practically speaking, the impact may be limited by the slow speed of the medium auto-negotiation protocol, which makes it unlikely for the current state to still be unresolved when a new one is detected, but I think the problem is there. Nonetheless, the problem was discovered using lockdep. Proposed solution ================= Practically speaking, the phy_config_inband() requirement of having phydev->lock acquired must transfer to the caller (phylink is the only caller). There, it must bubble up until immediately before &pl->state_mutex is acquired, for the cases where that takes place. Solution details, considerations, notes ======================================= This is the phy_config_inband() call graph: sfp_upstream_ops :: connect_phy() | v phylink_sfp_connect_phy() | v phylink_sfp_config_phy() | | sfp_upstream_ops :: module_insert() | | | v | phylink_sfp_module_insert() | | | | sfp_upstream_ops :: module_start() | | | | | v | | phylink_sfp_module_start() | | | | v v | phylink_sfp_config_optical() phylink_start() | | | phylink_resume() v v | | phylink_sfp_set_config() | | | v v v phylink_mac_initial_config() | phylink_resolve() | | phylink_ethtool_ksettings_set() v v v phylink_major_config() | v phy_config_inband() phylink_major_config() caller #1, phylink_mac_initial_config(), does not acquire &pl->state_mutex nor do its callers. It must acquire &pl->phydev->lock prior to calling phylink_major_config(). phylink_major_config() caller #2, phylink_resolve() acquires &pl->state_mutex, thus also needs to acquire &pl->phydev->lock. phylink_major_config() caller #3, phylink_ethtool_ksettings_set(), is completely uninteresting, because it only call ---truncated---

At a glance

Exploitability

Can be exploited locally on the machine with a low-privilege account. High risk of service disruption.

Exploit odds

0.1% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

A patch, advisory or fixed version is referenced. Upgrade or apply it.

Timeline

1. 2025-10-01 08:15 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
2. 2026-10-19 21:10 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.1% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: 5.5 MEDIUM (CVSS).
• Fix: a patch or advisory is linked.

Details

Published

2025-10-01 08:15 UTC

Last modified

2026-10-19 21:10 UTC

Exploit probability

0.1% · EPSS, next 30 days

Weakness

CWE-667

Record status

Modified

Affected

• Linux Kernel < 6.16.8
• Linux Kernel 6.17

Attack profile CVSS 3.1 · 5.5

Attack vector

Local

Complexity

Low

Privileges needed

Low

User interaction

None

Scope

Unchanged

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

None

Availability

High

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-2025-39915.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2025-39915. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge