Vulnerability Database

352,427

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2025-38124 — linux / linux_kernel

Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime

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

net: fix udp gso skb_segment after pull from frag_list

Commit a1e40ac5b5e9 ("net: gso: fix udp gso fraglist segmentation after pull from frag_list") detected invalid geometry in frag_list skbs and redirects them from skb_segment_list to more robust skb_segment. But some packets with modified geometry can also hit bugs in that code. We don't know how many such cases exist. Addressing each one by one also requires touching the complex skb_segment code, which risks introducing bugs for other types of skbs. Instead, linearize all these packets that fail the basic invariants on gso fraglist skbs. That is more robust.

If only part of the fraglist payload is pulled into head_skb, it will always cause exception when splitting skbs by skb_segment. For detailed call stack information, see below.

Valid SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST skbs

  • consist of two or more segments
  • the head_skb holds the protocol headers plus first gso_size
  • one or more frag_list skbs hold exactly one segment
  • all but the last must be gso_size

Optional datapath hooks such as NAT and BPF (bpf_skb_pull_data) can modify fraglist skbs, breaking these invariants.

In extreme cases they pull one part of data into skb linear. For UDP, this causes three payloads with lengths of (11,11,10) bytes were pulled tail to become (12,10,10) bytes.

The skbs no longer meets the above SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST conditions because payload was pulled into head_skb, it needs to be linearized before pass to regular skb_segment.

skb_segment+0xcd0/0xd14 __udp_gso_segment+0x334/0x5f4 udp4_ufo_fragment+0x118/0x15c inet_gso_segment+0x164/0x338 skb_mac_gso_segment+0xc4/0x13c __skb_gso_segment+0xc4/0x124 validate_xmit_skb+0x9c/0x2c0 validate_xmit_skb_list+0x4c/0x80 sch_direct_xmit+0x70/0x404 __dev_queue_xmit+0x64c/0xe5c neigh_resolve_output+0x178/0x1c4 ip_finish_output2+0x37c/0x47c __ip_finish_output+0x194/0x240 ip_finish_output+0x20/0xf4 ip_output+0x100/0x1a0 NF_HOOK+0xc4/0x16c ip_forward+0x314/0x32c ip_rcv+0x90/0x118 __netif_receive_skb+0x74/0x124 process_backlog+0xe8/0x1a4 __napi_poll+0x5c/0x1f8 net_rx_action+0x154/0x314 handle_softirqs+0x154/0x4b8 [118.376811] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:bug&]kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:4278! [118.376829] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:traps&]Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [118.470774] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]Kernel Offset: 0x178cc00000 from 0xffffffc008000000 [118.470810] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]PHYS_OFFSET: 0x40000000 [118.470827] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO) [118.470848] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]pc : [0xffffffd79598aefc] skb_segment+0xcd0/0xd14 [118.470900] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]lr : [0xffffffd79598a5e8] skb_segment+0x3bc/0xd14 [118.470928] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]sp : ffffffc008013770
  • Published: Jul 3, 2025
  • Updated: Dec 18, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2025-38124
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: Medium
  • Score: 5.5
  • AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CWEs:

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.