CVE-2025-40118: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: pm80xx: Fix array-index-out-of-of-bounds on rmmod Since commit f7b705c238d...

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: pm80xx: Fix array-index-out-of-of-bounds on rmmod Since commit f7b705c238d1 ("scsi: pm80xx: Set phy_attached to zero when device is gone") UBSAN reports: UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c:786:17 index 28 is out of range for type 'pm8001_phy [16]' on rmmod when using an expander. For a direct attached device, attached_phy contains the local phy id. For a device behind an expander, attached_phy contains the remote phy id, not the local phy id. I.e. while pm8001_ha will have pm8001_ha->chip->n_phy local phys, for a device behind an expander, attached_phy can be much larger than pm8001_ha->chip->n_phy (depending on the amount of phys of the expander). E.g. on my system pm8001_ha has 8 phys with phy ids 0-7. One of the ports has an expander connected. The expander has 31 phys with phy ids 0-30. The pm8001_ha->phy array only contains the phys of the HBA. It does not contain the phys of the expander. Thus, it is wrong to use attached_phy to index the pm8001_ha->phy array for a device behind an expander. Thus, we can only clear phy_attached for devices that are directly attached.

Metrics

EPSS Probability

0.18%

8.1th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

References

Timeline

Published: Nov 12, 2025
Last Modified: Jun 17, 2026
Status: Deferred

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-40118?

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: pm80xx: Fix array-index-out-of-of-bounds on rmmod Since commit f7b705c238d1 ("scsi: pm80xx: Set phy_attached to zero when device is gone") UBSAN reports: UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c:786:17 index 28 is out of range for type 'pm8001_phy [16]' on rmmod when using an expander. For a direct attached device, attached_phy contains the local phy id. For a device behind an expander, attached_phy contains the remote phy id, not the local phy id. I.e. while pm8001_ha will have pm8001_ha->chip->n_phy local phys, for a device behind an expander, attached_phy can be much larger than pm8001_ha->chip->n_phy (depending on the amount of phys of the expander). E.g. on my system pm8001_ha has 8 phys with phy ids 0-7. One of the ports has an expander connected. The expander has 31 phys with phy ids 0-30. The pm8001_ha->phy array only contains the phys of the HBA. It does not contain the phys of the expander. Thus, it is wrong to use attached_phy to index the pm8001_ha->phy array for a device behind an expander. Thus, we can only clear phy_attached for devices that are directly attached.

How severe is CVE-2025-40118?

Severity scoring for CVE-2025-40118 is pending analysis. The EPSS model estimates a 0.18% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.

How do I fix CVE-2025-40118?

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.