Vulnerability Database

352,427

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2025-38468 — linux / linux_kernel

NULL Pointer Dereference

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

net/sched: Return NULL when htb_lookup_leaf encounters an empty rbtree

htb_lookup_leaf has a BUG_ON that can trigger with the following:

tc qdisc del dev lo root tc qdisc add dev lo root handle 1: htb default 1 tc class add dev lo parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 64bit tc qdisc add dev lo parent 1:1 handle 2: netem tc qdisc add dev lo parent 2:1 handle 3: blackhole ping -I lo -c1 -W0.001 127.0.0.1

The root cause is the following:

  1. htb_dequeue calls htb_dequeue_tree which calls the dequeue handler on the selected leaf qdisc
  2. netem_dequeue calls enqueue on the child qdisc
  3. blackhole_enqueue drops the packet and returns a value that is not just NET_XMIT_SUCCESS
  4. Because of this, netem_dequeue calls qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog, and since qlen is now 0, it calls htb_qlen_notify -> htb_deactivate -> htb_deactiviate_prios -> htb_remove_class_from_row -> htb_safe_rb_erase
  5. As this is the only class in the selected hprio rbtree, __rb_change_child in __rb_erase_augmented sets the rb_root pointer to NULL
  6. Because blackhole_dequeue returns NULL, netem_dequeue returns NULL, which causes htb_dequeue_tree to call htb_lookup_leaf with the same hprio rbtree, and fail the BUG_ON

The function graph for this scenario is shown here: 0) | htb_enqueue() { 0) + 13.635 us | netem_enqueue(); 0) 4.719 us | htb_activate_prios(); 0) # 2249.199 us | } 0) | htb_dequeue() { 0) 2.355 us | htb_lookup_leaf(); 0) | netem_dequeue() { 0) + 11.061 us | blackhole_enqueue(); 0) | qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog() { 0) | qdisc_lookup_rcu() { 0) 1.873 us | qdisc_match_from_root(); 0) 6.292 us | } 0) 1.894 us | htb_search(); 0) | htb_qlen_notify() { 0) 2.655 us | htb_deactivate_prios(); 0) 6.933 us | } 0) + 25.227 us | } 0) 1.983 us | blackhole_dequeue(); 0) + 86.553 us | } 0) # 2932.761 us | qdisc_warn_nonwc(); 0) | htb_lookup_leaf() { 0) | BUG_ON();

The full original bug report can be seen here [1].

We can fix this just by returning NULL instead of the BUG_ON, as htb_dequeue_tree returns NULL when htb_lookup_leaf returns NULL.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/pF5XOOIim0IuEfhI-SOxTgRvNoDwuux7UHKnE_Y5-zVd4wmGvNk2ceHjKb8ORnzw0cGwfmVu42g9dL7XyJLf1NEzaztboTWcm0Ogxuojoeo=@willsroot.io/

  • Published: Jul 28, 2025
  • Updated: Dec 23, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2025-38468
  • 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.