CVE-2025-37905
Linux Kernel 5.13 – 5.15.182
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-37905 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 9th 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-2025-15940
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: firmware: arm_scmi: Balance device refcount when destroying devices Using device_find_child() to lookup the proper SCMI device to destroy causes an unbalance in device refcount, since device_find_child() calls an implicit get_device():…
more
this, in turns, inhibits the call of the provided release methods upon devices destruction. As a consequence, one of the structures that is not freed properly upon destruction is the internal struct device_private dev->p populated by the drivers subsystem core. KMemleak detects this situation since loading/unloding some SCMI driver causes related devices to be created/destroyed without calling any device_release method. unreferenced object 0xffff00000f583800 (size 512): comm "insmod", pid 227, jiffies 4294912190 hex dump (first 32 bytes): 00 00 00 00 ad 4e ad de ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 .....N.......... ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 60 36 1d 8a 00 80 ff ff ........`6...... backtrace (crc 114e2eed): kmemleak_alloc+0xbc/0xd8 __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x2dc/0x398 device_add+0x954/0x12d0 device_register+0x28/0x40 __scmi_device_create.part.0+0x1bc/0x380 scmi_device_create+0x2d0/0x390 scmi_create_protocol_devices+0x74/0xf8 scmi_device_request_notifier+0x1f8/0x2a8 notifier_call_chain+0x110/0x3b0 blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x70/0xb0 scmi_driver_register+0x350/0x7f0 0xffff80000a3b3038 do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x730 do_init_module+0x1dc/0x640 load_module+0x4b20/0x5b70 init_module_from_file+0xec/0x158 $ ./scripts/faddr2line ./vmlinux device_add+0x954/0x12d0 device_add+0x954/0x12d0: kmalloc_noprof at include/linux/slab.h:901 (inlined by) kzalloc_noprof at include/linux/slab.h:1037 (inlined by) device_private_init at drivers/base/core.c:3510 (inlined by) device_add at drivers/base/core.c:3561 Balance device refcount by issuing a put_device() on devices found via device_find_child().
- 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 (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 SDLC practices directly enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.