CVE-2025-71074

MEDIUMCVSS 4.7/10EPSS 0.09%

Last modified

CVE-2025-71074 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 4.7/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: functionfs: fix the open/removal races ffs_epfile_open() can race with removal, ending up with file->private_data pointing to freed object. There is a total count of opened files on functionfs (both ep0 and dynamic ones) and when it hits zero, dynamic files get removed. Unfortunately, that removal can happen while another thread is in ffs_epfile_open(), but has not incremented the count yet. In that case open will succeed, leaving us with UAF on any subsequent read() or write(). The root cause is that ffs->opened is misused; atomic_dec_and_test() vs. atomic_add_return() is not a good idea, when object remains visible all along. To untangle that * serialize openers on ffs->mutex (both for ep0 and for dynamic files) * have dynamic ones use atomic_inc_not_zero() and fail if we had zero ->opened; in that case the file we are opening is doomed. * have the inodes of dynamic files marked on removal (from the callback of simple_recursive_removal()) - clear ->i_private there. * have open of dynamic ones verify they hadn't been already removed, along with checking that state is FFS_ACTIVE.. EPSS estimates a 0.09% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: functionfs: fix the open/removal races ffs_epfile_open() can race with removal, ending up with file->private_data pointing to freed object. There is a total count of opened files on functionfs (both ep0 and dynamic ones) and when it hits zero, dynamic files get removed. Unfortunately, that removal can happen while another thread is in ffs_epfile_open(), but has not incremented the count yet. In that case open will succeed, leaving us with UAF on any subsequent read() or write(). The root cause is that ffs->opened is misused; atomic_dec_and_test() vs. atomic_add_return() is not a good idea, when object remains visible all along. To untangle that * serialize openers on ffs->mutex (both for ep0 and for dynamic files) * have dynamic ones use atomic_inc_not_zero() and fail if we had zero ->opened; in that case the file we are opening is doomed. * have the inodes of dynamic files marked on removal (from the callback of simple_recursive_removal()) - clear ->i_private there. * have open of dynamic ones verify they hadn't been already removed, along with checking that state is FFS_ACTIVE.

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
4.7/10

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

EPSS Probability
0.09%

0.8th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersionsUpdate
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 2.6.35.1, < 6.19
LinuxLinux Kernel2.6.35
LinuxLinux Kernel6.19Rc1

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-71074?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: functionfs: fix the open/removal races ffs_epfile_open() can race with removal, ending up with file->private_data pointing to freed object. There is a total count of opened files on functionfs (both ep0 and dynamic ones) and when it hits zero, dynamic files get removed. Unfortunately, that removal can happen while another thread is in ffs_epfile_open(), but has not incremented the count yet. In that case open will succeed, leaving us with UAF on any subsequent read() or write(). The root cause is that ffs->opened is misused; atomic_dec_and_test() vs. atomic_add_return() is not a good idea, when object remains visible all along. To untangle that * serialize openers on ffs->mutex (both for ep0 and for dynamic files) * have dynamic ones use atomic_inc_not_zero() and fail if we had zero ->opened; in that case the file we are opening is doomed. * have the inodes of dynamic files marked on removal (from the callback of simple_recursive_removal()) - clear ->i_private there. * have open of dynamic ones verify they hadn't been already removed, along with checking that state is FFS_ACTIVE.
How severe is CVE-2025-71074?
CVE-2025-71074 has a CVSS score of 4.7/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.09% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2025-71074?
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-2025-71074?

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

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST