Look up another CVE · open CVE-2025-40160 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2025-40160
xen/events: Return -EEXIST for bound VIRQs
Published 2025-11-12 (11 months ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem drivers/xen. Debian urgency: not yet assigned.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2025-40160 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | vulnerable | 6.1.190-1 | No fix published anywhere yet, neither in Debian nor upstream for the series bookworm tracks. Watch the Debian tracker page for this CVE. Advisories for bookworm have historically landed a median of 23 days after publication. |
| Debian 13trixie | fixed | 6.12.57-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.12.57-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 6.17.6-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.17.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 6.17.6-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 6.17.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
Change find_virq() to return -EEXIST when a VIRQ is bound to a different CPU than the one passed in. With that, remove the BUG_ON() from bind_virq_to_irq() to propogate the error upwards. Some VIRQs are per-cpu, but others are per-domain or global. Those must be bound to CPU0 and can then migrate elsewhere. The lookup for per-domain and global will probably fail when migrated off CPU 0, especially when the current CPU is tracked. This now returns -EEXIST instead of BUG_ON(). A second call to bind a per-domain or global VIRQ is not expected, but make it non-fatal to avoid trying to look up the irq, since we don't know which per_cpu(virq_to_irq) it will be in.
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.
drivers/xen/events/events_base.c
- What this is
- XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACEMAINTAINERS section matched on drivers/xen/ · xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org · Supported
Check it on the machine
grep -w CONFIG_XEN /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, but not on every flavour. At least one release below builds the code on some of its kernel flavours and not on others, so the answer depends on the architecture and flavour installed.
- bookwormYnot built on i386/686, ppc64el/powerpc64le
- trixieYnot built on armel/rpi, ppc64el/powerpc64le, ppc64el/powerpc64le-64k, riscv64/riscv64, s390x/s390x
- forky, sidYnot built on loong64/loong64, ppc64el/powerpc64le, ppc64el/powerpc64le-64k, riscv64/riscv64, s390x/s390x
- Y
- built in where it is built at all; some flavours do not build it
- Build switch
- CONFIG_XEN
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
- 2025-11-12 (11 months ago)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- 0.20%, higher than 9.3% of all CVEssource
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- not yet assignedsource
- Subsystem
- drivers/xen
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 3.2 | 6.6.113 | 612ef6056855 |
| 3.2 | 6.12.54 | a1e7f07ae6b5 |
| 3.2 | 6.17.4 | f81db055a793 |
| 3.2 | 6.18 | 07ce121d93a5 |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2025-40160, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.