Security assessments indicate that CVE-2025-21902 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕡 31 Oct 2025, 18:51 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 01 Apr 2025, 16:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 213 days
CVSS Release: version 3
nvd@nist.gov
Primary
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVE-2025-21902: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: acpi: typec: ucsi: Introduce a ->poll_cci method For the ACPI backend of UCSI the UCSI "registers" are just a memory copy of the register values in an opregion. The ACPI implementation in the BIOS ensures that the opregion contents are synced to the embedded controller and it ensures that the registers (in particular CCI) are synced back to the opregion on notifications. While there is an ACPI call that syncs the actual registers to the opregion there is rarely a need to do this and on some ACPI implementations it actually breaks in various interesting ways. The only reason to force a sync from the embedded controller is to poll CCI while notifications are disabled. Only the ucsi core knows if this is the case and guessing based on the current command is suboptimal, i.e. leading to the following spurious assertion splat: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 76 at drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c:1388 ucsi_reset_ppm+0x1b4/0x1c0 [typec_ucsi] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 76 Comm: kworker/3:0 Not tainted 6.12.11-200.fc41.x86_64 #1 Hardware name: LENOVO 21D0/LNVNB161216, BIOS J6CN45WW 03/17/2023 Workqueue: events_long ucsi_init_work [typec_ucsi] RIP: 0010:ucsi_reset_ppm+0x1b4/0x1c0 [typec_ucsi] Call Trace: <TASK> ucsi_init_work+0x3c/0xac0 [typec_ucsi] process_one_work+0x179/0x330 worker_thread+0x252/0x390 kthread+0xd2/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> Thus introduce a ->poll_cci() method that works like ->read_cci() with an additional forced sync and document that this should be used when polling with notifications disabled. For all other backends that presumably don't have this issue use the same implementation for both methods.
The exploitability of CVE-2025-21902 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
CVE-2025-21902 presents an accessible attack vector with minimal effort required. Restricting access controls and implementing security updates are critical to reducing exploitation risks.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-21902, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-21902, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
NVD-CWE-noinfo
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.