FKIE_CVE-2025-38244
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-07-09 11:15 - Updated: 2025-11-20 20:13
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
smb: client: fix potential deadlock when reconnecting channels
Fix cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect() to take the correct lock order
and prevent the following deadlock from happening
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.16.0-rc3-build2+ #1301 Tainted: G S W
------------------------------------------------------
cifsd/6055 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88810ad56038 (&tcp_ses->srv_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x134/0x200
but task is already holding lock:
ffff888119c64330 (&ret_buf->chan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0xcf/0x200
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (&ret_buf->chan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270
__lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780
lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0
_raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
cifs_setup_session+0x81/0x4b0
cifs_get_smb_ses+0x771/0x900
cifs_mount_get_session+0x7e/0x170
cifs_mount+0x92/0x2d0
cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x161/0x460
smb3_get_tree+0x55/0x90
vfs_get_tree+0x46/0x180
do_new_mount+0x1b0/0x2e0
path_mount+0x6ee/0x740
do_mount+0x98/0xe0
__do_sys_mount+0x148/0x180
do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
-> #1 (&ret_buf->ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270
__lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780
lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0
_raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
cifs_match_super+0x101/0x320
sget+0xab/0x270
cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x1e0/0x460
smb3_get_tree+0x55/0x90
vfs_get_tree+0x46/0x180
do_new_mount+0x1b0/0x2e0
path_mount+0x6ee/0x740
do_mount+0x98/0xe0
__do_sys_mount+0x148/0x180
do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
-> #0 (&tcp_ses->srv_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_noncircular+0x95/0xc0
check_prev_add+0x115/0x2f0
validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270
__lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780
lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0
_raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x134/0x200
__cifs_reconnect+0x8f/0x500
cifs_handle_standard+0x112/0x280
cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x64d/0xbc0
kthread+0x2f7/0x310
ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x230
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&tcp_ses->srv_lock --> &ret_buf->ses_lock --> &ret_buf->chan_lock
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&ret_buf->chan_lock);
lock(&ret_buf->ses_lock);
lock(&ret_buf->chan_lock);
lock(&tcp_ses->srv_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by cifsd/6055:
#0: ffffffff857de398 (&cifs_tcp_ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x7b/0x200
#1: ffff888119c64060 (&ret_buf->ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x9c/0x200
#2: ffff888119c64330 (&ret_buf->chan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0xcf/0x200
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | 6.16 | |
| linux | linux_kernel | 6.16 | |
| linux | linux_kernel | 6.16 |
{
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "FFC584E9-F7DC-40D8-8BE8-9CB5F3B41F2B",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.6.96",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.0",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "2BD88DEC-018F-4F40-8E29-A2CA89813EBA",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.12.36",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.7",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "0CC768E2-3BBC-4A6E-9C2F-ECB27A703C2D",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.15.5",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.13",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.16:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "6D4894DB-CCFE-4602-B1BF-3960B2E19A01",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.16:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "09709862-E348-4378-8632-5A7813EDDC86",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.16:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "415BF58A-8197-43F5-B3D7-D1D63057A26E",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nsmb: client: fix potential deadlock when reconnecting channels\n\nFix cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect() to take the correct lock order\nand prevent the following deadlock from happening\n\n======================================================\nWARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n6.16.0-rc3-build2+ #1301 Tainted: G S W\n------------------------------------------------------\ncifsd/6055 is trying to acquire lock:\nffff88810ad56038 (\u0026tcp_ses-\u003esrv_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x134/0x200\n\nbut task is already holding lock:\nffff888119c64330 (\u0026ret_buf-\u003echan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0xcf/0x200\n\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n\n-\u003e #2 (\u0026ret_buf-\u003echan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270\n __lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780\n lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0\n _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40\n cifs_setup_session+0x81/0x4b0\n cifs_get_smb_ses+0x771/0x900\n cifs_mount_get_session+0x7e/0x170\n cifs_mount+0x92/0x2d0\n cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x161/0x460\n smb3_get_tree+0x55/0x90\n vfs_get_tree+0x46/0x180\n do_new_mount+0x1b0/0x2e0\n path_mount+0x6ee/0x740\n do_mount+0x98/0xe0\n __do_sys_mount+0x148/0x180\n do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e\n\n-\u003e #1 (\u0026ret_buf-\u003eses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270\n __lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780\n lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0\n _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40\n cifs_match_super+0x101/0x320\n sget+0xab/0x270\n cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x1e0/0x460\n smb3_get_tree+0x55/0x90\n vfs_get_tree+0x46/0x180\n do_new_mount+0x1b0/0x2e0\n path_mount+0x6ee/0x740\n do_mount+0x98/0xe0\n __do_sys_mount+0x148/0x180\n do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e\n\n-\u003e #0 (\u0026tcp_ses-\u003esrv_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n check_noncircular+0x95/0xc0\n check_prev_add+0x115/0x2f0\n validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270\n __lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780\n lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0\n _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40\n cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x134/0x200\n __cifs_reconnect+0x8f/0x500\n cifs_handle_standard+0x112/0x280\n cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x64d/0xbc0\n kthread+0x2f7/0x310\n ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x230\n ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30\n\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\nChain exists of:\n \u0026tcp_ses-\u003esrv_lock --\u003e \u0026ret_buf-\u003eses_lock --\u003e \u0026ret_buf-\u003echan_lock\n\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0 CPU1\n ---- ----\n lock(\u0026ret_buf-\u003echan_lock);\n lock(\u0026ret_buf-\u003eses_lock);\n lock(\u0026ret_buf-\u003echan_lock);\n lock(\u0026tcp_ses-\u003esrv_lock);\n\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n3 locks held by cifsd/6055:\n #0: ffffffff857de398 (\u0026cifs_tcp_ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x7b/0x200\n #1: ffff888119c64060 (\u0026ret_buf-\u003eses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x9c/0x200\n #2: ffff888119c64330 (\u0026ret_buf-\u003echan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0xcf/0x200"
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: smb: cliente: se corrige un posible bloqueo al reconectar canales Se corrige cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect() para que adopte el orden de bloqueo correcto y evite que se produzca el siguiente bloqueo ========================================================= ADVERTENCIA: se detect\u00f3 una posible dependencia de bloqueo circular 6.16.0-rc3-build2+ #1301 Tainted: G S W ------------------------------------------------------ cifsd/6055 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88810ad56038 (\u0026amp;tcp_ses-\u0026gt;srv_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x134/0x200 but task is already holding lock: ffff888119c64330 (\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;chan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0xcf/0x200 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -\u0026gt; #2 (\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;chan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270 __lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780 lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 cifs_setup_session+0x81/0x4b0 cifs_get_smb_ses+0x771/0x900 cifs_mount_get_session+0x7e/0x170 cifs_mount+0x92/0x2d0 cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x161/0x460 smb3_get_tree+0x55/0x90 vfs_get_tree+0x46/0x180 do_new_mount+0x1b0/0x2e0 path_mount+0x6ee/0x740 do_mount+0x98/0xe0 __do_sys_mount+0x148/0x180 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e -\u0026gt; #1 (\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270 __lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780 lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 cifs_match_super+0x101/0x320 sget+0xab/0x270 cifs_smb3_do_mount+0x1e0/0x460 smb3_get_tree+0x55/0x90 vfs_get_tree+0x46/0x180 do_new_mount+0x1b0/0x2e0 path_mount+0x6ee/0x740 do_mount+0x98/0xe0 __do_sys_mount+0x148/0x180 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e -\u0026gt; #0 (\u0026amp;tcp_ses-\u0026gt;srv_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: check_noncircular+0x95/0xc0 check_prev_add+0x115/0x2f0 validate_chain+0x1cf/0x270 __lock_acquire+0x60e/0x780 lock_acquire.part.0+0xb4/0x1f0 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x134/0x200 __cifs_reconnect+0x8f/0x500 cifs_handle_standard+0x112/0x280 cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x64d/0xbc0 kthread+0x2f7/0x310 ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x230 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: \u0026amp;tcp_ses-\u0026gt;srv_lock --\u0026gt; \u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;ses_lock --\u0026gt; \u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;chan_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;chan_lock); lock(\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;ses_lock); lock(\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;chan_lock); lock(\u0026amp;tcp_ses-\u0026gt;srv_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by cifsd/6055: #0: ffffffff857de398 (\u0026amp;cifs_tcp_ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x7b/0x200 #1: ffff888119c64060 (\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;ses_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0x9c/0x200 #2: ffff888119c64330 (\u0026amp;ret_buf-\u0026gt;chan_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cifs_signal_cifsd_for_reconnect+0xcf/0x200 "
}
],
"id": "CVE-2025-38244",
"lastModified": "2025-11-20T20:13:41.240",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
]
},
"published": "2025-07-09T11:15:26.480",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/711741f94ac3cf9f4e3aa73aa171e76d188c0819"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7f3ead8ebc0ef65b6c89a13912b4e80218425629"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c82c7041258d96e3286f6790ab700e4edd3cc9e3"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fe035dc78aa6ca8f862857d45beaf7a0e03206ca"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-667"
}
],
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…