CVE-2025-21721

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.19%

Last modified

CVE-2025-21721 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: handle errors that nilfs_prepare_chunk() may return Patch series "nilfs2: fix issues with rename operations". This series fixes BUG_ON check failures reported by syzbot around rename operations, and a minor behavioral issue where the mtime of a child directory changes when it is renamed instead of moved. This patch (of 2): The directory manipulation routines nilfs_set_link() and nilfs_delete_entry() rewrite the directory entry in the folio/page previously read by nilfs_find_entry(), so error handling is omitted on the assumption that nilfs_prepare_chunk(), which prepares the buffer for rewriting, will always succeed for these. And if an error is returned, it triggers the legacy BUG_ON() checks in each routine. This assumption is wrong, as proven by syzbot: the buffer layer called by nilfs_prepare_chunk() may call nilfs_get_block() if necessary, which may fail due to metadata corruption or other reasons. EPSS estimates a 0.19% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: handle errors that nilfs_prepare_chunk() may return Patch series "nilfs2: fix issues with rename operations". This series fixes BUG_ON check failures reported by syzbot around rename operations, and a minor behavioral issue where the mtime of a child directory changes when it is renamed instead of moved. This patch (of 2): The directory manipulation routines nilfs_set_link() and nilfs_delete_entry() rewrite the directory entry in the folio/page previously read by nilfs_find_entry(), so error handling is omitted on the assumption that nilfs_prepare_chunk(), which prepares the buffer for rewriting, will always succeed for these. And if an error is returned, it triggers the legacy BUG_ON() checks in each routine. This assumption is wrong, as proven by syzbot: the buffer layer called by nilfs_prepare_chunk() may call nilfs_get_block() if necessary, which may fail due to metadata corruption or other reasons. This has been there all along, but improved sanity checks and error handling may have made it more reproducible in fuzzing tests. Fix this issue by adding missing error paths in nilfs_set_link(), nilfs_delete_entry(), and their caller nilfs_rename().

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
5.5/10

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS Probability
0.19%

8.4th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 2.6.30, < 5.4.291
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.5, < 5.10.235
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.11, < 5.15.179
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.16, < 6.1.131
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.2, < 6.6.80
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.7, < 6.12.13
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.13.2

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Modified

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-21721?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: handle errors that nilfs_prepare_chunk() may return Patch series "nilfs2: fix issues with rename operations". This series fixes BUG_ON check failures reported by syzbot around rename operations, and a minor behavioral issue where the mtime of a child directory changes when it is renamed instead of moved. This patch (of 2): The directory manipulation routines nilfs_set_link() and nilfs_delete_entry() rewrite the directory entry in the folio/page previously read by nilfs_find_entry(), so error handling is omitted on the assumption that nilfs_prepare_chunk(), which prepares the buffer for rewriting, will always succeed for these. And if an error is returned, it triggers the legacy BUG_ON() checks in each routine. This assumption is wrong, as proven by syzbot: the buffer layer called by nilfs_prepare_chunk() may call nilfs_get_block() if necessary, which may fail due to metadata corruption or other reasons. This has been there all along, but improved sanity checks and error handling may have made it more reproducible in fuzzing tests. Fix this issue by adding missing error paths in nilfs_set_link(), nilfs_delete_entry(), and their caller nilfs_rename().
How severe is CVE-2025-21721?
CVE-2025-21721 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.19% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2025-21721?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

Are you affected by CVE-2025-21721?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST