Vulnerability Database

373,546

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2025-38060 — linux / linux_kernel

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: copy_verifier_state() should copy 'loop_entry' field

The bpf_verifier_state.loop_entry state should be copied by copy_verifier_state(). Otherwise, .loop_entry values from unrelated states would poison env->cur_state.

Additionally, env->stack should not contain any states with .loop_entry != NULL. The states in env->stack are yet to be verified, while .loop_entry is set for states that reached an equivalent state. This means that env->cur_state->loop_entry should always be NULL after pop_stack().

See the selftest in the next commit for an example of the program that is not safe yet is accepted by verifier w/o this fix.

This change has some verification performance impact for selftests:

File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)


arena_htab.bpf.o arena_htab_llvm 717 426 -291 (-40.59%) 57 37 -20 (-35.09%) arena_htab_asm.bpf.o arena_htab_asm 597 445 -152 (-25.46%) 47 37 -10 (-21.28%) arena_list.bpf.o arena_list_del 309 279 -30 (-9.71%) 23 14 -9 (-39.13%) iters.bpf.o iter_subprog_check_stacksafe 155 141 -14 (-9.03%) 15 14 -1 (-6.67%) iters.bpf.o iter_subprog_iters 1094 1003 -91 (-8.32%) 88 83 -5 (-5.68%) iters.bpf.o loop_state_deps2 479 725 +246 (+51.36%) 46 63 +17 (+36.96%) kmem_cache_iter.bpf.o open_coded_iter 63 59 -4 (-6.35%) 7 6 -1 (-14.29%) verifier_bits_iter.bpf.o max_words 92 84 -8 (-8.70%) 8 7 -1 (-12.50%) verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.o cond_break2 113 107 -6 (-5.31%) 12 12 +0 (+0.00%)

And significant negative impact for sched_ext:

File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)


bpf.bpf.o lavd_init 7039 14723 +7684 (+109.16%) 490 1139 +649 (+132.45%) bpf.bpf.o layered_dispatch 11485 10548 -937 (-8.16%) 848 762 -86 (-10.14%) bpf.bpf.o layered_dump 7422 1000001 +992579 (+13373.47%) 681 31178 +30497 (+4478.27%) bpf.bpf.o layered_enqueue 16854 71127 +54273 (+322.02%) 1611 6450 +4839 (+300.37%) bpf.bpf.o p2dq_dispatch 665 791 +126 (+18.95%) 68 78 +10 (+14.71%) bpf.bpf.o p2dq_init 2343 2980 +637 (+27.19%) 201 237 +36 (+17.91%) bpf.bpf.o refresh_layer_cpumasks 16487 674760 +658273 (+3992.68%) 1770 65370 +63600 (+3593.22%) bpf.bpf.o rusty_select_cpu 1937 40872 +38935 (+2010.07%) 177 3210 +3033 (+1713.56%) scx_central.bpf.o central_dispatch 636 2687 +2051 (+322.48%) 63 227 +164 (+260.32%) scx_nest.bpf.o nest_init 636 815 +179 (+28.14%) 60 73 +13 (+21.67%) scx_qmap.bpf.o qmap_dispatch
---truncated---

  • Published: Jun 18, 2025
  • Updated: Nov 15, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2025-38060
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: High
  • Score: 7.8
  • AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.