Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-39759 is a high-severity Race Condition (CWE-362) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); 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 SC-39 (Process Isolation) and SC-4 (Information in Shared System Resources) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-28953
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: qgroup: fix race between quota disable and quota rescan ioctl There's a race between a task disabling quotas and another running the rescan ioctl that can result in a…
more
use-after-free of qgroup records from the fs_info->qgroup_tree rbtree. This happens as follows: 1) Task A enters btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan() -> btrfs_qgroup_rescan(); 2) Task B enters btrfs_quota_disable() and calls btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion(), which does nothing because at that point fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running is false (it wasn't set yet by task A); 3) Task B calls btrfs_free_qgroup_config() which starts freeing qgroups from fs_info->qgroup_tree without taking the lock fs_info->qgroup_lock; 4) Task A enters qgroup_rescan_zero_tracking() which starts iterating the fs_info->qgroup_tree tree while holding fs_info->qgroup_lock, but task B is freeing qgroup records from that tree without holding the lock, resulting in a use-after-free. Fix this by taking fs_info->qgroup_lock at btrfs_free_qgroup_config(). Also at btrfs_qgroup_rescan() don't start the rescan worker if quotas were already disabled.
- 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
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.