CVE-2025-39886 — linux / linux_kernel
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Tell memcg to use allow_spinning=false path in bpf_timer_init()
Currently, calling bpf_map_kmalloc_node() from __bpf_async_init() can cause various locking issues; see the following stack trace (edited for style) as one example:
... [10.011566] do_raw_spin_lock.cold [10.011570] try_to_wake_up (5) double-acquiring the same [10.011575] kick_pool rq_lock, causing a hardlockup [10.011579] __queue_work [10.011582] queue_work_on [10.011585] kernfs_notify [10.011589] cgroup_file_notify [10.011593] try_charge_memcg (4) memcg accounting raises an [10.011597] obj_cgroup_charge_pages MEMCG_MAX event [10.011599] obj_cgroup_charge_account [10.011600] __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook [10.011603] __kmalloc_node_noprof ... [10.011611] bpf_map_kmalloc_node [10.011612] __bpf_async_init [10.011615] bpf_timer_init (3) BPF calls bpf_timer_init() [10.011617] bpf_prog_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_fcg_runnable [10.011619] bpf__sched_ext_ops_runnable [10.011620] enqueue_task_scx (2) BPF runs with rq_lock held [10.011622] enqueue_task [10.011626] ttwu_do_activate [10.011629] sched_ttwu_pending (1) grabs rq_lock ...
The above was reproduced on bpf-next (b338cf849ec8) by modifying ./tools/sched_ext/scx_flatcg.bpf.c to call bpf_timer_init() during ops.runnable(), and hacking the memcg accounting code a bit to make a bpf_timer_init() call more likely to raise an MEMCG_MAX event.
We have also run into other similar variants (both internally and on bpf-next), including double-acquiring cgroup_file_kn_lock, the same worker_pool::lock, etc.
As suggested by Shakeel, fix this by using __GFP_HIGH instead of GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init(), so that e.g. if try_charge_memcg() raises an MEMCG_MAX event, we call __memcg_memory_event() with @allow_spinning=false and avoid calling cgroup_file_notify() there.
Depends on mm patch "memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed": https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
v0 approach s/bpf_map_kmalloc_node/bpf_mem_alloc/ https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ v1 approach: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.15 | 6.6.107 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.48 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.16.8 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc1 | 6.17-rc1.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc2 | 6.17-rc2.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc3 | 6.17-rc3.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc4 | 6.17-rc4.x |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.17-rc5 | 6.17-rc5.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.