Security assessments indicate that CVE-2025-38016 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕖 14 Nov 2025, 19:01 UTC
Originally published on: 🕙 18 Jun 2025, 10:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 149 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-2025-38016: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: bpf: abort dispatch if device destroyed The current HID bpf implementation assumes no output report/request will go through it after hid_bpf_destroy_device() has been called. This leads to a bug that unplugging certain types of HID devices causes a cleaned- up SRCU to be accessed. The bug was previously a hidden failure until a recent x86 percpu change [1] made it access not-present pages. The bug will be triggered if the conditions below are met: A) a device under the driver has some LEDs on B) hid_ll_driver->request() is uninplemented (e.g., logitech-djreceiver) If condition A is met, hidinput_led_worker() is always scheduled *after* hid_bpf_destroy_device(). hid_destroy_device ` hid_bpf_destroy_device ` cleanup_srcu_struct(&hdev->bpf.srcu) ` hid_remove_device ` ... ` led_classdev_unregister ` led_trigger_set(led_cdev, NULL) ` led_set_brightness(led_cdev, LED_OFF) ` ... ` input_inject_event ` input_event_dispose ` hidinput_input_event ` schedule_work(&hid->led_work) [hidinput_led_worker] This is fine when condition B is not met, where hidinput_led_worker() calls hid_ll_driver->request(). This is the case for most HID drivers, which implement it or use the generic one from usbhid. The driver itself or an underlying driver will then abort processing the request. Otherwise, hidinput_led_worker() tries hid_hw_output_report() and leads to the bug. hidinput_led_worker ` hid_hw_output_report ` dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report ` srcu_read_lock(&hdev->bpf.srcu) ` srcu_read_unlock(&hdev->bpf.srcu, idx) The bug has existed since the introduction [2] of dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report(). However, the same bug also exists in dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests(), and I've reproduced (no visible effect because of the lack of [1], but confirmed bpf.destroyed == 1) the bug against the commit (i.e., the Fixes:) introducing the function. This is because hidinput_led_worker() falls back to hid_hw_raw_request() when hid_ll_driver->output_report() is uninplemented (e.g., logitech- djreceiver). hidinput_led_worker ` hid_hw_output_report: -ENOSYS ` hid_hw_raw_request ` dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests ` srcu_read_lock(&hdev->bpf.srcu) ` srcu_read_unlock(&hdev->bpf.srcu, idx) Fix the issue by returning early in the two mentioned functions if hid_bpf has been marked as destroyed. Though dispatch_hid_bpf_device_event() handles input events, and there is no evidence that it may be called after the destruction, the same check, as a safety net, is also added to it to maintain the consistency among all dispatch functions. The impact of the bug on other architectures is unclear. Even if it acts as a hidden failure, this is still dangerous because it corrupts whatever is on the address calculated by SRCU. Thus, CC'ing the stable list. [1]: commit 9d7de2aa8b41 ("x86/percpu/64: Use relative percpu offsets") [2]: commit 9286675a2aed ("HID: bpf: add HID-BPF hooks for hid_hw_output_report")
The exploitability of CVE-2025-38016 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-2025-38016 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-2025-38016, 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-2025-38016, 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.