CVE-2025-38291
Linux Kernel 6.13 – 6.15.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-38291 is a high-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 10th 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-2025-20957
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: ath12k: Prevent sending WMI commands to firmware during firmware crash Currently, we encounter the following kernel call trace when a firmware crash occurs. This happens because the host sends…
more
WMI commands to the firmware while it is in recovery, causing the commands to fail and resulting in the kernel call trace. Set the ATH12K_FLAG_CRASH_FLUSH and ATH12K_FLAG_RECOVERY flags when the host driver receives the firmware crash notification from MHI. This prevents sending WMI commands to the firmware during recovery. Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x75/0xc0 register_lock_class+0x6be/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x644/0x19a0 __lock_acquire+0x95/0x19a0 lock_acquire+0x265/0x310 ? ath12k_ce_send+0xa2/0x210 [ath12k] ? find_held_lock+0x34/0xa0 ? ath12k_ce_send+0x56/0x210 [ath12k] _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x33/0x70 ? ath12k_ce_send+0xa2/0x210 [ath12k] ath12k_ce_send+0xa2/0x210 [ath12k] ath12k_htc_send+0x178/0x390 [ath12k] ath12k_wmi_cmd_send_nowait+0x76/0xa0 [ath12k] ath12k_wmi_cmd_send+0x62/0x190 [ath12k] ath12k_wmi_pdev_bss_chan_info_request+0x62/0xc0 [ath1 ath12k_mac_op_get_survey+0x2be/0x310 [ath12k] ieee80211_dump_survey+0x99/0x240 [mac80211] nl80211_dump_survey+0xe7/0x470 [cfg80211] ? kmalloc_reserve+0x59/0xf0 genl_dumpit+0x24/0x70 netlink_dump+0x177/0x360 __netlink_dump_start+0x206/0x280 genl_family_rcv_msg_dumpit.isra.22+0x8a/0xe0 ? genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse.isra.23+0xe0/0xe0 ? genl_op_lock.part.12+0x10/0x10 ? genl_dumpit+0x70/0x70 genl_rcv_msg+0x1d0/0x290 ? nl80211_del_station+0x330/0x330 [cfg80211] ? genl_get_cmd_both+0x50/0x50 netlink_rcv_skb+0x4f/0x100 genl_rcv+0x1f/0x30 netlink_unicast+0x1b6/0x260 netlink_sendmsg+0x31a/0x450 __sock_sendmsg+0xa8/0xb0 ____sys_sendmsg+0x1e4/0x260 ___sys_sendmsg+0x89/0xe0 ? local_clock_noinstr+0xb/0xc0 ? rcu_is_watching+0xd/0x40 ? kfree+0x1de/0x370 ? __sys_sendmsg+0x7a/0xc0 Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.4.1-00199-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
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 prevent incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.
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 paths that deviate from intended logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.