CVE-2025-38124
Linux Kernel 6.1.113 – 6.1.142
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-38124 is a high-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 32th 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-2025-19819
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: fix udp gso skb_segment after pull from frag_list Commit a1e40ac5b5e9 ("net: gso: fix udp gso fraglist segmentation after pull from frag_list") detected invalid geometry in frag_list skbs and redirects…
more
them from skb_segment_list to more robust skb_segment. But some packets with modified geometry can also hit bugs in that code. We don't know how many such cases exist. Addressing each one by one also requires touching the complex skb_segment code, which risks introducing bugs for other types of skbs. Instead, linearize all these packets that fail the basic invariants on gso fraglist skbs. That is more robust. If only part of the fraglist payload is pulled into head_skb, it will always cause exception when splitting skbs by skb_segment. For detailed call stack information, see below. Valid SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST skbs - consist of two or more segments - the head_skb holds the protocol headers plus first gso_size - one or more frag_list skbs hold exactly one segment - all but the last must be gso_size Optional datapath hooks such as NAT and BPF (bpf_skb_pull_data) can modify fraglist skbs, breaking these invariants. In extreme cases they pull one part of data into skb linear. For UDP, this causes three payloads with lengths of (11,11,10) bytes were pulled tail to become (12,10,10) bytes. The skbs no longer meets the above SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST conditions because payload was pulled into head_skb, it needs to be linearized before pass to regular skb_segment. skb_segment+0xcd0/0xd14 __udp_gso_segment+0x334/0x5f4 udp4_ufo_fragment+0x118/0x15c inet_gso_segment+0x164/0x338 skb_mac_gso_segment+0xc4/0x13c __skb_gso_segment+0xc4/0x124 validate_xmit_skb+0x9c/0x2c0 validate_xmit_skb_list+0x4c/0x80 sch_direct_xmit+0x70/0x404 __dev_queue_xmit+0x64c/0xe5c neigh_resolve_output+0x178/0x1c4 ip_finish_output2+0x37c/0x47c __ip_finish_output+0x194/0x240 ip_finish_output+0x20/0xf4 ip_output+0x100/0x1a0 NF_HOOK+0xc4/0x16c ip_forward+0x314/0x32c ip_rcv+0x90/0x118 __netif_receive_skb+0x74/0x124 process_backlog+0xe8/0x1a4 __napi_poll+0x5c/0x1f8 net_rx_action+0x154/0x314 handle_softirqs+0x154/0x4b8 [118.376811] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:bug&]kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:4278! [118.376829] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:traps&]Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [118.470774] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]Kernel Offset: 0x178cc00000 from 0xffffffc008000000 [118.470810] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]PHYS_OFFSET: 0x40000000 [118.470827] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO) [118.470848] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]pc : [0xffffffd79598aefc] skb_segment+0xcd0/0xd14 [118.470900] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]lr : [0xffffffd79598a5e8] skb_segment+0x3bc/0xd14 [118.470928] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]sp : ffffffc008013770
- 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.