Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Cancel the running...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Cancel the running bpf_timer through kworker for PREEMPT_RT
During the update procedure, when overwrite element in a pre-allocated
htab, the freeing of old_element is protected by the bucket lock. The
reason why the bucket lock is necessary is that the old_element has
already been stashed in htab->extra_elems after alloc_htab_elem()
returns. If freeing the old_element after the bucket lock is unlocked,
the stashed element may be reused by concurrent update procedure and the
freeing of old_element will run concurrently with the reuse of the
old_element. However, the invocation of check_and_free_fields() may
acquire a spin-lock which violates the lockdep rule because its caller
has already held a raw-spin-lock (bucket lock). The following warning
will be reported when such race happens:
BUG: scheduling while atomic: test_progs/676/0x00000003
3 locks held by test_progs/676:
#0: ffffffff864b0240 (rcu_read_lock_trace){....}-{0:0}, at: bpf_prog_test_run_syscall+0x2c0/0x830
#1: ffff88810e961188 (&htab->lockdep_key){....}-{2:2}, at: htab_map_update_elem+0x306/0x1500
#2: ffff8881f4eac1b8 (&base->softirq_expiry_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: hrtimer_cancel_wait_running+0xe9/0x1b0
Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(O)
Preemption disabled at:
[] htab_map_update_elem+0x293/0x1500
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 676 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G ... 6.12.0+ #11
Tainted: [W]=WARN, [O]=OOT_MODULE
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996)...
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x70
dump_stack+0x10/0x20
__schedule_bug+0x120/0x170
__schedule+0x300c/0x4800
schedule_rtlock+0x37/0x60
rtlock_slowlock_locked+0x6d9/0x54c0
rt_spin_lock+0x168/0x230
hrtimer_cancel_wait_running+0xe9/0x1b0
hrtimer_cancel+0x24/0x30
bpf_timer_delete_work+0x1d/0x40
bpf_timer_cancel_and_free+0x5e/0x80
bpf_obj_free_fields+0x262/0x4a0
check_and_free_fields+0x1d0/0x280
htab_map_update_elem+0x7fc/0x1500
bpf_prog_9f90bc20768e0cb9_overwrite_cb+0x3f/0x43
bpf_prog_ea601c4649694dbd_overwrite_timer+0x5d/0x7e
bpf_prog_test_run_syscall+0x322/0x830
__sys_bpf+0x135d/0x3ca0
__x64_sys_bpf+0x75/0xb0
x64_sys_call+0x1b5/0xa10
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
...
It seems feasible to break the reuse and refill of per-cpu extra_elems
into two independent parts: reuse the per-cpu extra_elems with bucket
lock being held and refill the old_element as per-cpu extra_elems after
the bucket lock is unlocked. However, it will make the concurrent
overwrite procedures on the same CPU return unexpected -E2BIG error when
the map is full.
Therefore, the patch fixes the lock problem by breaking the cancelling
of bpf_timer into two steps for PREEMPT_RT:
- use hrtimer_try_to_cancel() and check its return value
- if the timer is running, use hrtimer_cancel() through a kworker to
cancel it again
Considering that the current implementation of hrtimer_cancel() will try
to acquire a being held softirq_expiry_lock when the current timer is
running, these steps above are reasonable. However, it also has
downside. When the timer is running, the cancelling of the timer is
delayed when releasing the last map uref. The delay is also fixable
(e.g., break the cancelling of bpf timer into two parts: one part in
locked scope, another one in unlocked scope), it can be revised later if
necessary.
It is a bit hard to decide the right fix tag. One reason is that the
problem depends on PREEMPT_RT which is enabled in v6.12. Considering the
softirq_expiry_lock lock exists since v5.4 and bpf_timer is introduced
in v5.15, the bpf_timer commit is used in the fixes tag and an extra
depends-on tag is added to state the dependency on PREEMPT_RT.
Depends-on: v6.12+ with PREEMPT_RT enabled
Impact
CVE-2025-21825 has a CVSS score of 4.7 (Medium). The vector is requires local access, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. No fixed version is listed yet, so configuration controls and monitoring matter more in the interim.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2025-21825? CVE-2025-21825 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-21825? CVE-2025-21825 has a CVSS score of 4.7 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2025-21825? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-21825 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-21825 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-21825 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2025-21825 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.