CVE-2025-39748

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.15%

Last modified

CVE-2025-39748 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. EPSS estimates a 0.15% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit> r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 after reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0] var_off=(0, 0) Improving the range refinement for JSET to cover all cases is tricky. We also don't expect many users to rely on JSET given LLVM doesn't generate those instructions. So instead of improving the range refinement for JSETs, Eduard suggested we forget the ranges whenever we're narrowing tnums after a JSET. This patch implements that approach.

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%

4.3th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel< 6.12.43
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.15.11
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.16, < 6.16.2

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Modified

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-39748?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Forget ranges when refining tnum after JSET Syzbot reported a kernel warning due to a range invariant violation on the following BPF program. 0: call bpf_get_netns_cookie 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> 2: if r0 & Oxffffffff goto <exit> The issue is on the path where we fall through both jumps. That path is unreachable at runtime: after insn 1, we know r0 != 0, but with the sign extension on the jset, we would only fallthrough insn 2 if r0 == 0. Unfortunately, is_branch_taken() isn't currently able to figure this out, so the verifier walks all branches. The verifier then refines the register bounds using the second condition and we end up with inconsistent bounds on this unreachable path: 1: if r0 == 0 goto <exit> r0: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0xffffffffffffffff) 2: if r0 & 0xffffffff goto <exit> r0 before reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0xffffffffffffffff] var_off=(0, 0) r0 after reg_bounds_sync: u64=[0x1, 0] var_off=(0, 0) Improving the range refinement for JSET to cover all cases is tricky. We also don't expect many users to rely on JSET given LLVM doesn't generate those instructions. So instead of improving the range refinement for JSETs, Eduard suggested we forget the ranges whenever we're narrowing tnums after a JSET. This patch implements that approach.
How severe is CVE-2025-39748?
CVE-2025-39748 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-2025-39748?
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-2025-39748?

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

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST