Vulnerability Database

373,546

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2025-38398 — linux / linux_kernel

NULL Pointer Dereference

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

spi: spi-qpic-snand: reallocate BAM transactions

Using the mtd_nandbiterrs module for testing the driver occasionally results in weird things like below.

  1. swiotlb mapping fails with the following message:

[ 85.926216] qcom_snand 79b0000.spi: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 4294967294 bytes), total 512 (slots), used 0 (slots) [ 85.932937] qcom_snand 79b0000.spi: failure in mapping desc [ 87.999314] qcom_snand 79b0000.spi: failure to write raw page [ 87.999352] mtd_nandbiterrs: error: write_oob failed (-110)

Rebooting the board after this causes a panic due to a NULL pointer dereference.

  1. If the swiotlb mapping does not fail, rebooting the board may result in a different panic due to a bad spinlock magic:

[ 256.104459] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#3, procd/2241 [ 256.104488] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffff0000049b ...

Investigating the issue revealed that these symptoms are results of memory corruption which is caused by out of bounds access within the driver.

The driver uses a dynamically allocated structure for BAM transactions, which structure must have enough space for all possible variations of different flash operations initiated by the driver. The required space heavily depends on the actual number of 'codewords' which is calculated from the pagesize of the actual NAND chip.

Although the qcom_nandc_alloc() function allocates memory for the BAM transactions during probe, but since the actual number of 'codewords' is not yet know the allocation is done for one 'codeword' only.

Because of this, whenever the driver does a flash operation, and the number of the required transactions exceeds the size of the allocated arrays the driver accesses memory out of the allocated range.

To avoid this, change the code to free the initially allocated BAM transactions memory, and allocate a new one once the actual number of 'codewords' required for a given NAND chip is known.

  • Published: Jul 25, 2025
  • Updated: Nov 20, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2025-38398
  • 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

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.