Strix
26.1K

CVE-2025-38708

HIGHCVSS 7.8/10EPSS 0.16%

Last modified

CVE-2025-38708 is a high-severity vulnerability rated 7.8/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once the writes are completed. In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get, resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free, and further to kernel crashes with symptoms. Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up. That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager, and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node before starting writes on the other node. Which means that other than for "test cases", this code path is never taken in real life. FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays. We still detect "write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them. We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent writes. EPSS estimates a 0.16% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once the writes are completed. In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get, resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free, and further to kernel crashes with symptoms. Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up. That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager, and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node before starting writes on the other node. Which means that other than for "test cases", this code path is never taken in real life. FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays. We still detect "write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them. We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent writes. If they do, that's their fault.

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
7.8/10

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

EPSS Probability
0.16%

5.2th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 4.5, < 5.4.297
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.5, < 5.10.241
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.11, < 5.15.190
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.16, < 6.1.149
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.2, < 6.6.103
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.7, < 6.12.43
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.15.11
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.16, < 6.16.2
DebianDebian Linux11.0

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Modified

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-38708?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once the writes are completed. In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get, resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free, and further to kernel crashes with symptoms. Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up. That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager, and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node before starting writes on the other node. Which means that other than for "test cases", this code path is never taken in real life. FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays. We still detect "write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them. We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent writes. If they do, that's their fault.
How severe is CVE-2025-38708?
CVE-2025-38708 has a CVSS score of 7.8/10 (HIGH severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.16% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2025-38708?
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-2025-38708?

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

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST