CVE-2025-39886

What the bug is

Currently, calling bpf_map_kmalloc_node() from __bpf_async_init() can cause various locking issues; see the following stack trace (edited for style) as one example: ... [10.011566] do_raw_spin_lock.cold [10.011570] try_to_wake_up (5) double-acquiring the same [10.011575] kick_pool rq_lock, causing a hardlockup [10.011579] __queue_work [10.011582] queue_work_on [10.011585] kernfs_notify [10.011589] cgroup_file_notify [10.011593] try_charge_memcg (4) memcg accounting raises an [10.011597] obj_cgroup_charge_pages MEMCG_MAX event [10.011599] obj_cgroup_charge_account [10.011600] __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook [10.011603] __kmalloc_node_noprof ... [10.011611] bpf_map_kmalloc_node [10.011612] __bpf_async_init [10.011615] bpf_timer_init (3) BPF calls bpf_timer_init() [10.011617] bpf_prog_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_fcg_runnable [10.011619] bpf__sched_ext_ops_runnable [10.011620] enqueue_task_scx (2) BPF runs with rq_lock held [10.011622] enqueue_task [10.011626] ttwu_do_activate [10.011629] sched_ttwu_pending (1) grabs rq_lock ... The above was reproduced on bpf-next (b338cf849ec8) by modifying ./tools/sched_ext/scx_flatcg.bpf.c to call bpf_timer_init() during ops.runnable(), and hacking the memcg accounting code a bit to make a bpf_timer_init() call more likely to raise an MEMCG_MAX event. We have also run into other similar variants (both internally and on bpf-next), including double-acquiring cgroup_file_kn_lock, the same worker_pool::lock, etc. As suggested by Shakeel, fix this by using __GFP_HIGH instead of GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init(), so that e.g. if try_charge_memcg() raises an MEMCG_MAX event, we call __memcg_memory_event() with @allow_spinning=false and avoid calling cgroup_file_notify() there. Depends on mm patch "memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed": https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250905201606.66198-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev/ v0 approach s/bpf_map_kmalloc_node/bpf_mem_alloc/ https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250905061919.439648-1-yepeilin@google.com/ v1 approach: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250905234547.862249-1-yepeilin@google.com/

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

kernel/bpf/helpers.c

What this is

BPF [GENERAL] (Safe Dynamic Programs and Tools)MAINTAINERS section matched on kernel/bpf/ · bpf@vger.kernel.org · Supported

Check it on the machine

grep -wE 'CONFIG_BPF|CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL' /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this code. Every release below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships.

• bookworm, trixie, forky, sidy

y

built into the kernel image on every flavour - only a patch removes it

Build switches

CONFIG_BPF, CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL

Reads as

all on means the file is compiled; any one off means it is not.

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published

2025-09-23 (13 months ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.15%, higher than 3.9% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

not yet assignedsource

Subsystem

kernel/bpf

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
5.15	6.6.107	449682e76f32
5.15	6.12.48	cd1fd26bb134
5.15	6.16.8	ac70cd446f83
5.15	6.17	6d78b4473cdb