Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-38001 is a high-severity Infinite Loop (CWE-835) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 33th 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 SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-17306
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net_sched: hfsc: Address reentrant enqueue adding class to eltree twice Savino says: "We are writing to report that this recent patch (141d34391abbb315d68556b7c67ad97885407547) [1] can be bypassed, and a UAF can…
more
still occur when HFSC is utilized with NETEM. The patch only checks the cl->cl_nactive field to determine whether it is the first insertion or not [2], but this field is only incremented by init_vf [3]. By using HFSC_RSC (which uses init_ed) [4], it is possible to bypass the check and insert the class twice in the eltree. Under normal conditions, this would lead to an infinite loop in hfsc_dequeue for the reasons we already explained in this report [5]. However, if TBF is added as root qdisc and it is configured with a very low rate, it can be utilized to prevent packets from being dequeued. This behavior can be exploited to perform subsequent insertions in the HFSC eltree and cause a UAF." To fix both the UAF and the infinite loop, with netem as an hfsc child, check explicitly in hfsc_enqueue whether the class is already in the eltree whenever the HFSC_RSC flag is set. [1] https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=141d34391abbb315d68556b7c67ad97885407547 [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15-rc5/source/net/sched/sch_hfsc.c#L1572 [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15-rc5/source/net/sched/sch_hfsc.c#L677 [4] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15-rc5/source/net/sched/sch_hfsc.c#L1574 [5] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/8DuRWwfqjoRDLDmBMlIfbrsZg9Gx50DHJc1ilxsEBNe2D6NMoigR_eIRIG0LOjMc3r10nUUZtArXx4oZBIdUfZQrwjcQhdinnMis_0G7VEk=@willsroot.io/T/#u
- 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 can discover unreachable loop exit conditions through static analysis, fuzzing, or execution tracing.
Flaw remediation processes identify and correct infinite-loop defects reported from testing or operations.
Requiring documented development processes and secure coding standards reduces introduction of loops whose termination conditions are unreachable.
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.
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 can uncover infinite-loop conditions before release.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that can detect and prevent infinite-loop defects.
Application security requirements can specify loop-termination rules, indirectly reducing the weakness.
Secure coding standards directly address loop termination and prevent infinite loops.
Secure architecture principles encourage designs that avoid unreachable exit conditions.
Change management can require review of loop logic when code is modified.