CVE-2025-38351

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Moderate Moderate Impact What does this mean?
7.3 CVSS v3 Base Score

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

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.

Statement

While not a memory corruption or LPE, this is guest-triggerable denial-of-service with privileged instructions, which makes it relevant in cloud environments using nested virtualization or hosting untrusted workloads (e.g., CI systems, fuzzing infrastructure, research clusters).

The issue was confirmed and the fix validated by testing on Azure (which implements Hyper-V).

A denial-of-service vulnerability was found in the KVM module of the Linux kernel when handling paravirtualized TLB flush hypercalls (HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST{,_EX}) under Hyper-V. On Intel hosts, passing non-canonical guest virtual addresses (GVAs) from a guest may trigger a VMFailInvalid condition during INVVPID, leading to WARN_ONCE() or kernel instability.

PR:L is justified because the attacker must have kernel-level privileges inside the guest VM to issue the hypercall.

S:C (scope changed) applies because the bug allows actions within a guest to impact the host kernel’s stability.

CIA: NNH reflects that the issue does not affect confidentiality or integrity, but can significantly affect availability through a potential host crash or soft lockup.

The related to this bug Kernel config param CONFIG_KVM_HYPERV enabled only for the latest version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.

Mitigation

Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options don't meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-38351

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-38351

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2025071951-CVE-2025-38351-75ea@gregkh/T

Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata

Products / Services Components State Errata
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 kernel Fixed RHSA-2025:18318
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2025:17377
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2025:21469
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 7.3 5.5
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity Low Low
Privileges Required Low Low
User Interaction None None
Scope Changed Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact None None
Integrity Impact Low None
Availability Impact High High

CVSS v3 Vector

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

NVD 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.