Strix
26.1K

CVE-2025-38055

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.15%

Last modified

CVE-2025-38055 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf/x86/intel: Fix segfault with PEBS-via-PT with sample_freq Currently, using PEBS-via-PT with a sample frequency instead of a sample period, causes a segfault. For example: BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000195 <NMI> ? __die_body.cold+0x19/0x27 ? page_fault_oops+0xca/0x290 ? exc_page_fault+0x7e/0x1b0 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 ? intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain+0x40/0x60 ? intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain+0x32/0x60 intel_pmu_drain_pebs_icl+0x333/0x350 handle_pmi_common+0x272/0x3c0 intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x10a/0x2e0 perf_event_nmi_handler+0x2a/0x50 That happens because intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain() assumes all the pebs_enabled bits represent counter indexes, which is not always the case. In this particular case, bits 60 and 61 are set for PEBS-via-PT purposes. The behaviour of PEBS-via-PT with sample frequency is questionable because although a PMI is generated (PEBS_PMI_AFTER_EACH_RECORD), the period is not adjusted anyway. Putting that aside, fix intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain() by passing the mask of counter bits instead of 'size'. EPSS estimates a 0.15% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf/x86/intel: Fix segfault with PEBS-via-PT with sample_freq Currently, using PEBS-via-PT with a sample frequency instead of a sample period, causes a segfault. For example: BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000195 <NMI> ? __die_body.cold+0x19/0x27 ? page_fault_oops+0xca/0x290 ? exc_page_fault+0x7e/0x1b0 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 ? intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain+0x40/0x60 ? intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain+0x32/0x60 intel_pmu_drain_pebs_icl+0x333/0x350 handle_pmi_common+0x272/0x3c0 intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x10a/0x2e0 perf_event_nmi_handler+0x2a/0x50 That happens because intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain() assumes all the pebs_enabled bits represent counter indexes, which is not always the case. In this particular case, bits 60 and 61 are set for PEBS-via-PT purposes. The behaviour of PEBS-via-PT with sample frequency is questionable because although a PMI is generated (PEBS_PMI_AFTER_EACH_RECORD), the period is not adjusted anyway. Putting that aside, fix intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain() by passing the mask of counter bits instead of 'size'. Note, prior to the Fixes commit, 'size' would be limited to the maximum counter index, so the issue was not hit.

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
0.15%

4.9th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersionsUpdate
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.10.5, < 6.12.31—
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.14.9—
LinuxLinux Kernel6.15Rc1

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-38055?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf/x86/intel: Fix segfault with PEBS-via-PT with sample_freq Currently, using PEBS-via-PT with a sample frequency instead of a sample period, causes a segfault. For example: BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000195 <NMI> ? __die_body.cold+0x19/0x27 ? page_fault_oops+0xca/0x290 ? exc_page_fault+0x7e/0x1b0 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 ? intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain+0x40/0x60 ? intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain+0x32/0x60 intel_pmu_drain_pebs_icl+0x333/0x350 handle_pmi_common+0x272/0x3c0 intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x10a/0x2e0 perf_event_nmi_handler+0x2a/0x50 That happens because intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain() assumes all the pebs_enabled bits represent counter indexes, which is not always the case. In this particular case, bits 60 and 61 are set for PEBS-via-PT purposes. The behaviour of PEBS-via-PT with sample frequency is questionable because although a PMI is generated (PEBS_PMI_AFTER_EACH_RECORD), the period is not adjusted anyway. Putting that aside, fix intel_pmu_pebs_event_update_no_drain() by passing the mask of counter bits instead of 'size'. Note, prior to the Fixes commit, 'size' would be limited to the maximum counter index, so the issue was not hit.
How severe is CVE-2025-38055?
CVE-2025-38055 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.15% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2025-38055?
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-2025-38055?

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

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST