Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-21865 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 13th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6288
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: gtp: Suppress list corruption splat in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl(). Brad Spengler reported the list_del() corruption splat in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl(). [0] Commit eb28fd76c0a0 ("gtp: Destroy device along with udp socket's netns dismantle.") added the…
more
for_each_netdev() loop in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() to destroy devices in each netns as done in geneve and ip tunnels. However, this could trigger ->dellink() twice for the same device during ->exit_batch_rtnl(). Say we have two netns A & B and gtp device B that resides in netns B but whose UDP socket is in netns A. 1. cleanup_net() processes netns A and then B. 2. gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() finds the device B while iterating netns A's gn->gtp_dev_list and calls ->dellink(). [ device B is not yet unlinked from netns B as unregister_netdevice_many() has not been called. ] 3. gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() finds the device B while iterating netns B's for_each_netdev() and calls ->dellink(). gtp_dellink() cleans up the device's hash table, unlinks the dev from gn->gtp_dev_list, and calls unregister_netdevice_queue(). Basically, calling gtp_dellink() multiple times is fine unless CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST is enabled. Let's remove for_each_netdev() in gtp_net_exit_batch_rtnl() and delegate the destruction to default_device_exit_batch() as done in bareudp. [0]: list_del corruption, ffff8880aaa62c00->next (autoslab_size_M_dev_P_net_core_dev_11127_8_1328_8_S_4096_A_64_n_139+0xc00/0x1000 [slab object]) is LIST_POISON1 (ffffffffffffff02) (prev is 0xffffffffffffff04) kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:58! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 1804 Comm: kworker/u8:7 Tainted: G T 6.12.13-grsec-full-20250211091339 #1 Tainted: [T]=RANDSTRUCT Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: netns cleanup_net RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff84947381>] __list_del_entry_valid_or_report+0x141/0x200 lib/list_debug.c:58 Code: c2 76 91 31 c0 e8 9f b1 f7 fc 0f 0b 4d 89 f0 48 c7 c1 02 ff ff ff 48 89 ea 48 89 ee 48 c7 c7 e0 c2 76 91 31 c0 e8 7f b1 f7 fc <0f> 0b 4d 89 e8 48 c7 c1 04 ff ff ff 48 89 ea 48 89 ee 48 c7 c7 60 RSP: 0018:fffffe8040b4fbd0 EFLAGS: 00010283 RAX: 00000000000000cc RBX: dffffc0000000000 RCX: ffffffff818c4054 RDX: ffffffff84947381 RSI: ffffffff818d1512 RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: ffff8880aaa62c00 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: fffffbd008169f32 R10: fffffe8040b4f997 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: a1988d84f24943e4 R13: ffffffffffffff02 R14: ffffffffffffff04 R15: ffff8880aaa62c08 RBX: kasan shadow of 0x0 RCX: __wake_up_klogd.part.0+0x74/0xe0 kernel/printk/printk.c:4554 RDX: __list_del_entry_valid_or_report+0x141/0x200 lib/list_debug.c:58 RSI: vprintk+0x72/0x100 kernel/printk/printk_safe.c:71 RBP: autoslab_size_M_dev_P_net_core_dev_11127_8_1328_8_S_4096_A_64_n_139+0xc00/0x1000 [slab object] RSP: process kstack fffffe8040b4fbd0+0x7bd0/0x8000 [kworker/u8:7+netns 1804 ] R09: kasan shadow of process kstack fffffe8040b4f990+0x7990/0x8000 [kworker/u8:7+netns 1804 ] R10: process kstack fffffe8040b4f997+0x7997/0x8000 [kworker/u8:7+netns 1804 ] R15: autoslab_size_M_dev_P_net_core_dev_11127_8_1328_8_S_4096_A_64_n_139+0xc08/0x1000 [slab object] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888116000000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000748f5372c000 CR3: 0000000015408000 CR4: 00000000003406f0 shadow CR4: 00000000003406f0 Stack: 0000000000000000 ffffffff8a0c35e7 ffffffff8a0c3603 ffff8880aaa62c00 ffff8880aaa62c00 0000000000000004 ffff88811145311c 0000000000000005 0000000000000001 ffff8880aaa62000 fffffe8040b4fd40 ffffffff8a0c360d Call Trace: <TASK> [<ffffffff8a0c360d>] __list_del_entry_valid include/linux/list.h:131 [inline] fffffe8040b4fc28 [<ffffffff8a0c360d>] __list_del_entry include/linux/list.h:248 [inline] fffffe8040b4fc28 [<ffffffff8a0c360d>] list_del include/linux/list.h:262 [inl ---truncated---
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.