CVE-2025-39677 — linux / linux_kernel
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/sched: Fix backlog accounting in qdisc_dequeue_internal
This issue applies for the following qdiscs: hhf, fq, fq_codel, and fq_pie, and occurs in their change handlers when adjusting to the new limit. The problem is the following in the values passed to the subsequent qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog call given a tbf parent:
When the tbf parent runs out of tokens, skbs of these qdiscs will be placed in gso_skb. Their peek handlers are qdisc_peek_dequeued, which accounts for both qlen and backlog. However, in the case of qdisc_dequeue_internal, ONLY qlen is accounted for when pulling from gso_skb. This means that these qdiscs are missing a qdisc_qstats_backlog_dec when dropping packets to satisfy the new limit in their change handlers.
One can observe this issue with the following (with tc patched to support a limit of 0):
export TARGET=fq tc qdisc del dev lo root tc qdisc add dev lo root handle 1: tbf rate 8bit burst 100b latency 1ms tc qdisc replace dev lo handle 3: parent 1:1 $TARGET limit 1000 echo ''; echo 'add child'; tc -s -d qdisc show dev lo ping -I lo -f -c2 -s32 -W0.001 127.0.0.1 2>&1 >/dev/null echo ''; echo 'after ping'; tc -s -d qdisc show dev lo tc qdisc change dev lo handle 3: parent 1:1 $TARGET limit 0 echo ''; echo 'after limit drop'; tc -s -d qdisc show dev lo tc qdisc replace dev lo handle 2: parent 1:1 sfq echo ''; echo 'post graft'; tc -s -d qdisc show dev lo
The second to last show command shows 0 packets but a positive number (74) of backlog bytes. The problem becomes clearer in the last show command, where qdisc_purge_queue triggers qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog with the positive backlog and causes an underflow in the tbf parent's backlog (4096 Mb instead of 0).
To fix this issue, the codepath for all clients of qdisc_dequeue_internal has been simplified: codel, pie, hhf, fq, fq_pie, and fq_codel. qdisc_dequeue_internal handles the backlog adjustments for all cases that do not directly use the dequeue handler.
The old fq_codel_change limit adjustment loop accumulated the arguments to the subsequent qdisc_tree_reduce_backlog call through the cstats field. However, this is confusing and error prone as fq_codel_dequeue could also potentially mutate this field (which qdisc_dequeue_internal calls in the non gso_skb case), so we have unified the code here with other qdiscs.
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 3.5 | 6.16.4 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc1 | 6.17-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc2 | 6.17-rc2.x |
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
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.