CVE-2025-38094
Linux Kernel 3.8 – 5.10.238
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-2025-38094 is a medium-severity Improper Locking (CWE-667) 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 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-19769
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: cadence: macb: Fix a possible deadlock in macb_halt_tx. There is a situation where after THALT is set high, TGO stays high as well. Because jiffies are never updated, as…
more
we are in a context with interrupts disabled, we never exit that loop and have a deadlock. That deadlock was noticed on a sama5d4 device that stayed locked for days. Use retries instead of jiffies so that the timeout really works and we do not have a deadlock anymore.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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 include code reviews, static analysis, and concurrency standards that prevent improper locking.
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 detect race conditions and locking errors before release.
Secure development lifecycle includes concurrency and locking requirements that reduce improper locking defects.
Application security requirements can mandate proper lock acquisition/release patterns.
Secure architecture principles address thread-safety and resource synchronization.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit missing or incorrect lock usage.
Change management may catch locking issues introduced by modifications but does not prevent the weakness itself.