Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-38632 is a medium-severity Race Condition (CWE-362) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 4.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 2th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25569
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: pinmux: fix race causing mux_owner NULL with active mux_usecount commit 5a3e85c3c397 ("pinmux: Use sequential access to access desc->pinmux data") tried to address the issue when two client of the same…
more
gpio calls pinctrl_select_state() for the same functionality, was resulting in NULL pointer issue while accessing desc->mux_owner. However, issue was not completely fixed due to the way it was handled and it can still result in the same NULL pointer. The issue occurs due to the following interleaving: cpu0 (process A) cpu1 (process B) pin_request() { pin_free() { mutex_lock() desc->mux_usecount--; //becomes 0 .. mutex_unlock() mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_usecount++; // becomes 1 desc->mux_owner = owner; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) mutex_lock(desc->mux) desc->mux_owner = NULL; mutex_unlock(desc->mux) This sequence leads to a state where the pin appears to be in use (`mux_usecount == 1`) but has no owner (`mux_owner == NULL`), which can cause NULL pointer on next pin_request on the same pin. Ensure that updates to mux_usecount and mux_owner are performed atomically under the same lock. Only clear mux_owner when mux_usecount reaches zero and no new owner has been assigned.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V10.4.2V10.4.5V15.1.3V15.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including static analysis) directly finds null-dereference bugs before deployment.
Documented development standards and tools can enforce null-safety rules and safe pointer usage.
Engineering principles can mandate defensive coding such as explicit null checks before dereference.
Maintaining separate execution domains for each process structurally eliminates unintended concurrent access to the same shared resources.
Preventing unintended information transfer through shared system resources directly addresses the improper concurrent modification that defines a race condition.
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 require proper synchronization primitives and concurrency testing that prevent race conditions.
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, but does not prevent them at design or coding time.
Secure SDLC mandates concurrency controls and synchronization primitives that directly prevent race conditions.
Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles require proper synchronization and resource isolation, addressing the root cause of CWE-362.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe concurrent access patterns and mandate atomic operations or locks.
Change management reduces introduction of concurrency bugs during updates, yet does not address the weakness itself.