Linux: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2025-22022 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Linux, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions abf2df229b6a9172cc1827749c1a446d28e00a2e, 8b586de6f03c850ff48d42e539b4708d1f3f8f1a, 1143f790a6316201dc8f067eba4c94ea97ecb6ca as the first without the flaw, so updating Linux to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.2% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Linux to abf2df229b6a9172cc1827749c1a446d28e00a2e or 8b586de6f03c850ff48d42e539b4708d1f3f8f1a or 1143f790a6316201dc8f067eba4c94ea97ecb6ca or dbf427663ce272070d3004b5fca63a4a537d781c, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Linux Kernel to 6.12.22 or 6.13.10, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, abf2df229b6a9172cc1827749c1a446d28e00a2e; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, 8b586de6f03c850ff48d42e539b4708d1f3f8f1a; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, 1143f790a6316201dc8f067eba4c94ea97ecb6ca; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, dbf427663ce272070d3004b5fca63a4a537d781c; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, a4931d9fb99eb5462f3eaa231999d279c40afb21; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, 43a18225150ce874d23b37761c302a5dffee1595; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, 061a1683bae6ef56ab8fa392725ba7495515cd1d; 7e393a834b41001174a8fb3ae3bc23a749467760 up to, but not including, bb0ba4cb1065e87f9cc75db1fa454e56d0894d01; and 5 more ranges | abf2df229b6a9172cc1827749c1a446d28e00a2e, 8b586de6f03c850ff48d42e539b4708d1f3f8f1a, 1143f790a6316201dc8f067eba4c94ea97ecb6ca, dbf427663ce272070d3004b5fca63a4a537d781c, a4931d9fb99eb5462f3eaa231999d279c40afb21, 43a18225150ce874d23b37761c302a5dffee1595 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | before 6.12.22; 6.13 up to, but not including, 6.13.10; 6.14 | 6.12.22, 6.13.10 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | CNA |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | NVD |
Official description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: usb: xhci: Apply the link chain quirk on NEC isoc endpoints Two clearly different specimens of NEC uPD720200 (one with start/stop bug, one without) were seen to cause IOMMU faults after some Missed Service Errors. Faulting address is immediately after a transfer ring segment and patched dynamic debug messages revealed that the MSE was received when waiting for a TD near the end of that segment: [ 1.041954] xhci_hcd: Miss service interval error for slot 1 ep 2 expected TD DMA ffa08fe0 [ 1.042120] xhci_hcd: AMD-Vi: Event logged [IO_PAGE_FAULT domain=0x0005 address=0xffa09000 flags=0x0000] [ 1.042146] xhci_hcd: AMD-Vi: Event logged [IO_PAGE_FAULT domain=0x0005 address=0xffa09040 flags=0x0000] It gets even funnier if the next page is a ring segment accessible to the HC. Below, it reports MSE in segment at ff1e8000, plows through a zero-filled page at ff1e9000 and starts reporting events for TRBs in page at ff1ea000 every microframe, instead of jumping to seg ff1e6000. [ 7.041671] xhci_hcd: Miss service interval error for slot 1 ep 2 expected TD DMA ff1e8fe0 [ 7.041999] xhci_hcd: Miss service interval error for slot 1 ep 2 expected TD DMA ff1e8fe0 [ 7.042011] xhci_hcd: WARN: buffer overrun event for slot 1 ep 2 on endpoint [ 7.042028] xhci_hcd: All TDs skipped for slot 1 ep 2. Clear skip flag. [ 7.042134] xhci_hcd: WARN: buffer overrun event for slot 1 ep 2 on endpoint [ 7.042138] xhci_hcd: ERROR Transfer event TRB DMA ptr not part of current TD ep_index 2 comp_code 31 [ 7.042144] xhci_hcd: Looking for event-dma 00000000ff1ea040 trb-start 00000000ff1e6820 trb-end 00000000ff1e6820 [ 7.042259] xhci_hcd: WARN: buffer overrun event for slot 1 ep 2 on endpoint [ 7.042262] xhci_hcd: ERROR Transfer event TRB DMA ptr not part of current TD ep_index 2 comp_code 31 [ 7.042266] xhci_hcd: Looking for event-dma 00000000ff1ea050 trb-start 00000000ff1e6820 trb-end 00000000ff1e6820 At some point completion events change from Isoch Buffer Overrun to Short Packet and the HC finally finds cycle bit mismatch in ff1ec000. [ 7.098130] xhci_hcd: ERROR Transfer event TRB DMA ptr not part of current TD ep_index 2 comp_code 13 [ 7.098132] xhci_hcd: Looking for event-dma 00000000ff1ecc50 trb-start 00000000ff1e6820 trb-end 00000000ff1e6820 [ 7.098254] xhci_hcd: ERROR Transfer event TRB DMA ptr not part of current TD ep_index 2 comp_code 13 [ 7.098256] xhci_hcd: Looking for event-dma 00000000ff1ecc60 trb-start 00000000ff1e6820 trb-end 00000000ff1e6820 [ 7.098379] xhci_hcd: Overrun event on slot 1 ep 2 It's possible that data from the isochronous device were written to random buffers of pending TDs on other endpoints (either IN or OUT), other devices or even other HCs in the same IOMMU domain. Lastly, an error from a different USB device on another HC. Was it caused by the above? I don't know, but it may have been. The disk was working without any other issues and generated PCIe traffic to starve the NEC of upstream BW and trigger those MSEs. The two HCs shared one x1 slot by means of a commercial "PCIe splitter" board. [ 7.162604] usb 10-2: reset SuperSpeed USB device number 3 using xhci_hcd [ 7.178990] sd 9:0:0:0: [sdb] tag#0 UNKNOWN(0x2003) Result: hostbyte=0x07 driverbyte=DRIVER_OK cmd_age=0s [ 7.179001] sd 9:0:0:0: [sdb] tag#0 CDB: opcode=0x28 28 00 04 02 ae 00 00 02 00 00 [ 7.179004] I/O error, dev sdb, sector 67284480 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x80700 phys_seg 5 prio class 0 Fortunately, it appears that this ridiculous bug is avoided by setting the chain bit of Link TRBs on isochronous rings. Other ancient HCs are known which also expect the bit to be set and they ignore Link TRBs if it's not. Reportedly, 0.95 spec guaranteed that the bit is set. The bandwidth-starved NEC HC running a 32KB/uframe UVC endpoint reports tens of MSEs per second and runs into the bug within seconds. Chaining Link TRBs allows the same workload to run for many minutes, many times. No ne ---truncated---
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Other references
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.