CVE-2025-21970 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-21970
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-21970 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕐 10 Apr 2025, 13:15 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 01 Apr 2025, 16:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 8 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-21970 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-21970: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5: Bridge, fix the crash caused by LAG state check When removing LAG device from bridge, NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER event is triggered. Driver finds the lower devices (PFs) to flush all the offloaded entries. And mlx5_lag_is_shared_fdb is checked, it returns false if one of PF is unloaded. In such case, mlx5_esw_bridge_lag_rep_get() and its caller return NULL, instead of the alive PF, and the flush is skipped. Besides, the bridge fdb entry's lastuse is updated in mlx5 bridge event handler. But this SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE event can be ignored in this case because the upper interface for bond is deleted, and the entry will never be aged because lastuse is never updated. To make things worse, as the entry is alive, mlx5 bridge workqueue keeps sending that event, which is then handled by kernel bridge notifier. It causes the following crash when accessing the passed bond netdev which is already destroyed. To fix this issue, remove such checks. LAG state is already checked in commit 15f8f168952f ("net/mlx5: Bridge, verify LAG state when adding bond to bridge"), driver still need to skip offload if LAG becomes invalid state after initialization. Oops: stack segment: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 23695 Comm: kworker/u40:3 Tainted: G OE 6.11.0_mlnx #1 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.13.0-0-gf21b5a4aeb02-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Workqueue: mlx5_bridge_wq mlx5_esw_bridge_update_work [mlx5_core] RIP: 0010:br_switchdev_event+0x2c/0x110 [bridge] Code: 44 00 00 48 8b 02 48 f7 00 00 02 00 00 74 69 41 54 55 53 48 83 ec 08 48 8b a8 08 01 00 00 48 85 ed 74 4a 48 83 fe 02 48 89 d3 <4c> 8b 65 00 74 23 76 49 48 83 fe 05 74 7e 48 83 fe 06 75 2f 0f b7 RSP: 0018:ffffc900092cfda0 EFLAGS: 00010297 RAX: ffff888123bfe000 RBX: ffffc900092cfe08 RCX: 00000000ffffffff RDX: ffffc900092cfe08 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffffffffa0c585f0 RBP: 6669746f6e690a30 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff888123ae92c8 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: fefefefefefefeff R12: ffff888123ae9c60 R13: 0000000000000001 R14: ffffc900092cfe08 R15: 0000000000000000 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88852c980000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f15914c8734 CR3: 0000000002830005 CR4: 0000000000770ef0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? die+0x38/0x60 ? do_trap+0x10b/0x120 ? do_error_trap+0x64/0xa0 ? exc_stack_segment+0x33/0x50 ? asm_exc_stack_segment+0x22/0x30 ? br_switchdev_event+0x2c/0x110 [bridge] ? sched_balance_newidle.isra.149+0x248/0x390 notifier_call_chain+0x4b/0xa0 atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20 mlx5_esw_bridge_update+0xec/0x170 [mlx5_core] mlx5_esw_bridge_update_work+0x19/0x40 [mlx5_core] process_scheduled_works+0x81/0x390 worker_thread+0x106/0x250 ? bh_worker+0x110/0x110 kthread+0xb7/0xe0 ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80 ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50 ? kthread_park+0x80/0x80 ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 </TASK>

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-21970

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-21970 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).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-21970

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-21970.

Understanding AC and PR

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.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-21970, 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.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-21970, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-21970 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-21970 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-21970 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-21970 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-21970: Combat Critical CVE Threats

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.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-3805 – A vulnerability classified as critical was found in sarrionandia tournatrack up to 4c13a23f43da5317eea4614870a7a8510fc540ec. Affected by this vulne...
  • CVE-2025-3804 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in thautwarm vscode-diana 0.0.1. Affected is an unknown function of the file Gen.py of the co...
  • CVE-2025-3803 – A vulnerability was found in Tenda W12 and i24 3.0.0.4(2887)/3.0.0.5(3644). It has been rated as critical. This issue affects the function cgiSysSc...
  • CVE-2025-3802 – A vulnerability was found in Tenda W12 and i24 3.0.0.4(2887)/3.0.0.5(3644). It has been declared as critical. This vulnerability affects the functi...
  • CVE-2025-3801 – A vulnerability was found in songquanpeng one-api up to 0.6.10. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the componen...