ghsa-mr4j-mh66-4679
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-07-22 09:30
Modified
2025-11-03 18:31
Severity ?
7.4 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

posix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del()

If an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and calls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent or debugger right after unlock_task_sighand().

If a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won't be able to detect timer->it.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or lock_task_sighand() will fail.

Add the tsk->exit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this.

This fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because exit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still makes sense, task_work_add(&tsk->posix_cputimers_work.work) will fail anyway in this case.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-38352"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-367"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-07-22T08:15:23Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nposix-cpu-timers: fix race between handle_posix_cpu_timers() and posix_cpu_timer_del()\n\nIf an exiting non-autoreaping task has already passed exit_notify() and\ncalls handle_posix_cpu_timers() from IRQ, it can be reaped by its parent\nor debugger right after unlock_task_sighand().\n\nIf a concurrent posix_cpu_timer_del() runs at that moment, it won\u0027t be\nable to detect timer-\u003eit.cpu.firing != 0: cpu_timer_task_rcu() and/or\nlock_task_sighand() will fail.\n\nAdd the tsk-\u003eexit_state check into run_posix_cpu_timers() to fix this.\n\nThis fix is not needed if CONFIG_POSIX_CPU_TIMERS_TASK_WORK=y, because\nexit_task_work() is called before exit_notify(). But the check still\nmakes sense, task_work_add(\u0026tsk-\u003eposix_cputimers_work.work) will fail\nanyway in this case.",
  "id": "GHSA-mr4j-mh66-4679",
  "modified": "2025-11-03T18:31:25Z",
  "published": "2025-07-22T09:30:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-38352"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2c72fe18cc5f9f1750f5bc148cf1c94c29e106ff"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2f3daa04a9328220de46f0d5c919a6c0073a9f0b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/460188bc042a3f40f72d34b9f7fc6ee66b0b757b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/764a7a5dfda23f69919441f2eac2a83e7db6e5bb"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/78a4b8e3795b31dae58762bc091bb0f4f74a2200"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c076635b3a42771ace7d276de8dc3bc76ee2ba1b"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c29d5318708e67ac13c1b6fc1007d179fb65b4d7"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f90fff1e152dedf52b932240ebbd670d83330eca"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00007.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00008.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-38352"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.