CVE-2025-38351 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-38351
Vulnerability Scoring

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-2025-38351 Details

Status: Received on 19 Jul 2025, 12:15 UTC

Published on: 19 Jul 2025, 12:15 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-38351 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-38351: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: x86/hyper-v: Skip non-canonical addresses during PV TLB flush In KVM guests with Hyper-V hypercalls enabled, the hypercalls HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST and HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST_EX allow a guest to request invalidation of portions of a virtual TLB. For this, the hypercall parameter includes a list of GVAs that are supposed to be invalidated. However, when non-canonical GVAs are passed, there is currently no filtering in place and they are eventually passed to checked invocations of INVVPID on Intel / INVLPGA on AMD. While AMD's INVLPGA silently ignores non-canonical addresses (effectively a no-op), Intel's INVVPID explicitly signals VM-Fail and ultimately triggers the WARN_ONCE in invvpid_error(): invvpid failed: ext=0x0 vpid=1 gva=0xaaaaaaaaaaaaa000 WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 326 at arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c:482 invvpid_error+0x91/0xa0 [kvm_intel] Modules linked in: kvm_intel kvm 9pnet_virtio irqbypass fuse CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 326 Comm: kvm-vm Not tainted 6.15.0 #14 PREEMPT(voluntary) RIP: 0010:invvpid_error+0x91/0xa0 [kvm_intel] Call Trace: vmx_flush_tlb_gva+0x320/0x490 [kvm_intel] kvm_hv_vcpu_flush_tlb+0x24f/0x4f0 [kvm] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x3013/0x5810 [kvm] Hyper-V documents that invalid GVAs (those that are beyond a partition's GVA space) are to be ignored. While not completely clear whether this ruling also applies to non-canonical GVAs, it is likely fine to make that assumption, and manual testing on Azure confirms "real" Hyper-V interprets the specification in the same way. Skip non-canonical GVAs when processing the list of address to avoid tripping the INVVPID failure. Alternatively, KVM could filter out "bad" GVAs before inserting into the FIFO, but practically speaking the only downside of pushing validation to the final processing is that doing so is suboptimal for the guest, and no well-behaved guest will request TLB flushes for non-canonical addresses.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-38351

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-38351 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-2025-38351

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-38351.

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-2025-38351, 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-2025-38351, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2025-38351 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2025-38351 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2025-38351 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-38351 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-38351: 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-2025-7834 – A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in PHPGurukul Complaint Management System 2.0. Affected is an unknown function. The...
CVE-2025-7833 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in code-projects Church Donation System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown proc...
CVE-2025-7832 – A vulnerability classified as critical was found in code-projects Church Donation System 1.0. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /...
CVE-2025-7831 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in code-projects Church Donation System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /member...
CVE-2025-7830 – A vulnerability was found in code-projects Church Donation System 1.0. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functi...