As a catastrophic security flaw, CVE-2025-22077 has severe implications, demanding immediate intervention.
Status: Modified
Last updated: 🕕 30 Jul 2026, 06:22 UTC
Originally published on: 🕒 16 Apr 2025, 15:16 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 469 days
CVSS Release: version 3
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
Secondary
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVE-2025-22077: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Revert "smb: client: fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod" This reverts commit e9f2517a3e18a54a3943c098d2226b245d488801. Commit e9f2517a3e18 ("smb: client: fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod") is intended to fix a null-ptr-deref in LOCKDEP, which is mentioned as CVE-2024-54680, but is actually did not fix anything; The issue can be reproduced on top of it. [0] Also, it reverted the change by commit ef7134c7fc48 ("smb: client: Fix use-after-free of network namespace.") and introduced a real issue by reviving the kernel TCP socket. When a reconnect happens for a CIFS connection, the socket state transitions to FIN_WAIT_1. Then, inet_csk_clear_xmit_timers_sync() in tcp_close() stops all timers for the socket. If an incoming FIN packet is lost, the socket will stay at FIN_WAIT_1 forever, and such sockets could be leaked up to net.ipv4.tcp_max_orphans. Usually, FIN can be retransmitted by the peer, but if the peer aborts the connection, the issue comes into reality. I warned about this privately by pointing out the exact report [1], but the bogus fix was finally merged. So, we should not stop the timers to finally kill the connection on our side in that case, meaning we must not use a kernel socket for TCP whose sk->sk_net_refcnt is 0. The kernel socket does not have a reference to its netns to make it possible to tear down netns without cleaning up every resource in it. For example, tunnel devices use a UDP socket internally, but we can destroy netns without removing such devices and let it complete during exit. Otherwise, netns would be leaked when the last application died. However, this is problematic for TCP sockets because TCP has timers to close the connection gracefully even after the socket is close()d. The lifetime of the socket and its netns is different from the lifetime of the underlying connection. If the socket user does not maintain the netns lifetime, the timer could be fired after the socket is close()d and its netns is freed up, resulting in use-after-free. Actually, we have seen so many similar issues and converted such sockets to have a reference to netns. That's why I converted the CIFS client socket to have a reference to netns (sk->sk_net_refcnt == 1), which is somehow mentioned as out-of-scope of CIFS and technically wrong in e9f2517a3e18, but **is in-scope and right fix**. Regarding the LOCKDEP issue, we can prevent the module unload by bumping the module refcount when switching the LOCKDDEP key in sock_lock_init_class_and_name(). [2] For a while, let's revert the bogus fix. Note that now we can use sk_net_refcnt_upgrade() for the socket conversion, but I'll do so later separately to make backport easy.
The exploitability of CVE-2025-22077 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).
With low attack complexity and no required privileges, CVE-2025-22077 is an easy target for cybercriminals. Organizations should prioritize immediate mitigation measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches.
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-2025-22077, 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-2025-22077, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
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.