CVE-2025-39843 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-39843
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-2025-39843 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕘 22 Sep 2025, 21:23 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 19 Sep 2025, 16:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 3 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-39843 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-39843: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: slub: avoid wake up kswapd in set_track_prepare set_track_prepare() can incur lock recursion. The issue is that it is called from hrtimer_start_range_ns holding the per_cpu(hrtimer_bases)[n].lock, but when enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS, may wake up kswapd in set_track_prepare, and try to hold the per_cpu(hrtimer_bases)[n].lock. Avoid deadlock caused by implicitly waking up kswapd by passing in allocation flags, which do not contain __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM in the debug_objects_fill_pool() case. Inside stack depot they are processed by gfp_nested_mask(). Since ___slab_alloc() has preemption disabled, we mask out __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM from the flags there. The oops looks something like: BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#3, swapper/3/0 lock: 0xffffff8a4bf29c80, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/3/0, .owner_cpu: 3 Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Popsicle based on SM8850 (DT) Call trace: spin_bug+0x0 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x80 hrtimer_try_to_cancel+0x94 task_contending+0x10c enqueue_dl_entity+0x2a4 dl_server_start+0x74 enqueue_task_fair+0x568 enqueue_task+0xac do_activate_task+0x14c ttwu_do_activate+0xcc try_to_wake_up+0x6c8 default_wake_function+0x20 autoremove_wake_function+0x1c __wake_up+0xac wakeup_kswapd+0x19c wake_all_kswapds+0x78 __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x1ac __alloc_pages_noprof+0x298 stack_depot_save_flags+0x6b0 stack_depot_save+0x14 set_track_prepare+0x5c ___slab_alloc+0xccc __kmalloc_cache_noprof+0x470 __set_page_owner+0x2bc post_alloc_hook[jt]+0x1b8 prep_new_page+0x28 get_page_from_freelist+0x1edc __alloc_pages_noprof+0x13c alloc_slab_page+0x244 allocate_slab+0x7c ___slab_alloc+0x8e8 kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x450 debug_objects_fill_pool+0x22c debug_object_activate+0x40 enqueue_hrtimer[jt]+0xdc hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x5f8 ...

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-39843

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-39843 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-2025-39843

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-39843.

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-2025-39843, 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-2025-39843, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-39843 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-39843 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-39843 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-39843 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-39843: 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-2025-62672 – rplay through 3.3.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (SIGSEGV and daemon crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact. This occurs...
  • CVE-2025-47410 – Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tric...
  • CVE-2025-11926 – The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1...
  • CVE-2025-9890 – The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing...
  • CVE-2025-5555 – A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the...