CVE-2025-38632
Last modified
CVE-2025-38632 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 4.7/10 on the CVSS scale. 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 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.. EPSS estimates a 0.10% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
Description
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 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.
Metrics
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Weakness Enumeration
Affected Software
| Vendor | Product | Versions |
|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.6.66, < 6.6.102 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.12.5, < 6.12.42 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.13, < 6.15.10 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.16, < 6.16.1 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Analyzed
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2025-38632?
How severe is CVE-2025-38632?
How do I fix CVE-2025-38632?
Are you affected by CVE-2025-38632?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
