Vulnerability Database

373,546

Total vulnerabilities in the database

CVE-2025-38493 — linux / linux_kernel

Uncontrolled Recursion

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

tracing/osnoise: Fix crash in timerlat_dump_stack()

We have observed kernel panics when using timerlat with stack saving, with the following dmesg output:

memcpy: detected buffer overflow: 88 byte write of buffer size 0 WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 8153 at lib/string_helpers.c:1032 __fortify_report+0x55/0xa0 CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 8153 Comm: timerlatu/2 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.15.3-200.fc42.x86_64 #1 PREEMPT(lazy) Call Trace: <TASK> ? trace_buffer_lock_reserve+0x2a/0x60 __fortify_panic+0xd/0xf __timerlat_dump_stack.cold+0xd/0xd timerlat_dump_stack.part.0+0x47/0x80 timerlat_fd_read+0x36d/0x390 vfs_read+0xe2/0x390 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1d5/0x210 ksys_read+0x73/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0x7b/0x160 ? exc_page_fault+0x7e/0x1a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

__timerlat_dump_stack() constructs the ftrace stack entry like this:

struct stack_entry *entry; ... memcpy(&entry->caller, fstack->calls, size); entry->size = fstack->nr_entries;

Since commit e7186af7fb26 ("tracing: Add back FORTIFY_SOURCE logic to kernel_stack event structure"), struct stack_entry marks its caller field with __counted_by(size). At the time of the memcpy, entry->size contains garbage from the ringbuffer, which under some circumstances is zero, triggering a kernel panic by buffer overflow.

Populate the size field before the memcpy so that the out-of-bounds check knows the correct size. This is analogous to __ftrace_trace_stack().

  • Published: Jul 28, 2025
  • Updated: Nov 20, 2025
  • CVE: CVE-2025-38493
  • 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.