CVE-2025-21693

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: zswap: properly synchronize freeing resources during CPU hotunplug In zswap_compress() and zswap_decompress(), the per-CPU acomp_ctx of the current CPU at the beginning of the operation is retrieved and used throughout. However, since neither preemption nor migration are disabled, it is possible that the operation continues on a different CPU. If the original CPU is hotunplugged while the acomp_ctx is still in use, we run into a UAF bug as some of the resources attached to the acomp_ctx are freed during hotunplug in zswap_cpu_comp_dead() (i.e. acomp_ctx.buffer, acomp_ctx.req, or acomp_ctx.acomp). The problem was introduced in commit 1ec3b5fe6eec ("mm/zswap: move to use crypto_acomp API for hardware acceleration") when the switch to the crypto_acomp API was made. Prior to that, the per-CPU crypto_comp was retrieved using get_cpu_ptr() which disables preemption and makes sure the CPU cannot go away from under us. Preemption cannot be disabled with the crypto_acomp API as a sleepable context is needed. Use the acomp_ctx.mutex to synchronize CPU hotplug callbacks allocating and freeing resources with compression/decompression paths. Make sure that acomp_ctx.req is NULL when the resources are freed. In the compression/decompression paths, check if acomp_ctx.req is NULL after acquiring the mutex (meaning the CPU was offlined) and retry on the new CPU. The initialization of acomp_ctx.mutex is moved from the CPU hotplug callback to the pool initialization where it belongs (where the mutex is allocated). In addition to adding clarity, this makes sure that CPU hotplug cannot reinitialize a mutex that is already locked by compression/decompression. Previously a fix was attempted by holding cpus_read_lock() [1]. This would have caused a potential deadlock as it is possible for code already holding the lock to fall into reclaim and enter zswap (causing a deadlock). A fix was also attempted using SRCU for synchronization, but Johannes pointed out that synchronize_srcu() cannot be used in CPU hotplug notifiers [2]. Alternative fixes that were considered/attempted and could have worked: - Refcounting the per-CPU acomp_ctx. This involves complexity in handling the race between the refcount dropping to zero in zswap_[de]compress() and the refcount being re-initialized when the CPU is onlined. - Disabling migration before getting the per-CPU acomp_ctx [3], but that's discouraged and is a much bigger hammer than needed, and could result in subtle performance issues. [1]https://lkml.kernel.org/20241219212437.2714151-1-yosryahmed@google.com/ [2]https://lkml.kernel.org/20250107074724.1756696-2-yosryahmed@google.com/ [3]https://lkml.kernel.org/20250107222236.2715883-2-yosryahmed@google.com/ [yosryahmed@google.com: remove comment]

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-21693

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-21693

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2025021056-CVE-2025-21693-b6d1@gregkh/T

Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata

Products / Services Components State Errata
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 kernel Fixed RHSA-2025:20095
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Out of support scope
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Out of support scope
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2025:20518
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Will not fix
Unless explicitly stated as not affected, all previous versions of packages in any minor update stream of a product listed here should be assumed vulnerable, although may not have been subject to full analysis.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown Red Hat NVD
CVSS v3 Base Score 5.5
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Privileges Required Low
User Interaction None
Scope Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact None
Integrity Impact None
Availability Impact High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our This content is not included.Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?

When a product is listed as "Out of Support Scope", it means a vulnerability with the impact level assigned to this CVE is no longer covered by its current support lifecycle phase. The product has been identified to contain the impacted component, but analysis to determine whether it is affected or not by this vulnerability was not performed. The product should be assumed to be affected. Customers are advised to apply any mitigation options documented on this page, consider removing or disabling the impacted component, or upgrade to a supported version of the product that has an update available.