CVE-2025-68725

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.16%

Last modified

CVE-2025-68725 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Do not let BPF test infra emit invalid GSO types to stack Yinhao et al. reported that their fuzzer tool was able to trigger a skb_warn_bad_offload() from netif_skb_features() -> gso_features_check(). When a BPF program - triggered via BPF test infra - pushes the packet to the loopback device via bpf_clone_redirect() then mentioned offload warning can be seen. EPSS estimates a 0.16% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Do not let BPF test infra emit invalid GSO types to stack Yinhao et al. reported that their fuzzer tool was able to trigger a skb_warn_bad_offload() from netif_skb_features() -> gso_features_check(). When a BPF program - triggered via BPF test infra - pushes the packet to the loopback device via bpf_clone_redirect() then mentioned offload warning can be seen. GSO-related features are then rightfully disabled. We get into this situation due to convert___skb_to_skb() setting gso_segs and gso_size but not gso_type. Technically, it makes sense that this warning triggers since the GSO properties are malformed due to the gso_type. Potentially, the gso_type could be marked non-trustworthy through setting it at least to SKB_GSO_DODGY without any other specific assumptions, but that also feels wrong given we should not go further into the GSO engine in the first place. The checks were added in 121d57af308d ("gso: validate gso_type in GSO handlers") because there were malicious (syzbot) senders that combine a protocol with a non-matching gso_type. If we would want to drop such packets, gso_features_check() currently only returns feature flags via netif_skb_features(), so one location for potentially dropping such skbs could be validate_xmit_unreadable_skb(), but then otoh it would be an additional check in the fast-path for a very corner case. Given bpf_clone_redirect() is the only place where BPF test infra could emit such packets, lets reject them right there.

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
0.16%

5.7th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.6, < 5.10.249
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.11, < 5.15.199
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 5.16, < 6.1.162
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.2, < 6.6.122
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.7, < 6.12.68
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.13, < 6.18.2

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-68725?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Do not let BPF test infra emit invalid GSO types to stack Yinhao et al. reported that their fuzzer tool was able to trigger a skb_warn_bad_offload() from netif_skb_features() -> gso_features_check(). When a BPF program - triggered via BPF test infra - pushes the packet to the loopback device via bpf_clone_redirect() then mentioned offload warning can be seen. GSO-related features are then rightfully disabled. We get into this situation due to convert___skb_to_skb() setting gso_segs and gso_size but not gso_type. Technically, it makes sense that this warning triggers since the GSO properties are malformed due to the gso_type. Potentially, the gso_type could be marked non-trustworthy through setting it at least to SKB_GSO_DODGY without any other specific assumptions, but that also feels wrong given we should not go further into the GSO engine in the first place. The checks were added in 121d57af308d ("gso: validate gso_type in GSO handlers") because there were malicious (syzbot) senders that combine a protocol with a non-matching gso_type. If we would want to drop such packets, gso_features_check() currently only returns feature flags via netif_skb_features(), so one location for potentially dropping such skbs could be validate_xmit_unreadable_skb(), but then otoh it would be an additional check in the fast-path for a very corner case. Given bpf_clone_redirect() is the only place where BPF test infra could emit such packets, lets reject them right there.
How severe is CVE-2025-68725?
CVE-2025-68725 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.16% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2025-68725?
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-2025-68725?

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

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST