Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: Remove RTNL dance for...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: Remove RTNL dance for SIOCBRADDIF and SIOCBRDELIF.
SIOCBRDELIF is passed to dev_ioctl() first and later forwarded to
br_ioctl_call(), which causes unnecessary RTNL dance and the splat
below [0] under RTNL pressure.
Let's say Thread A is trying to detach a device from a bridge and
Thread B is trying to remove the bridge.
In dev_ioctl(), Thread A bumps the bridge device's refcnt by
netdev_hold() and releases RTNL because the following br_ioctl_call()
also re-acquires RTNL.
In the race window, Thread B could acquire RTNL and try to remove
the bridge device. Then, rtnl_unlock() by Thread B will release RTNL
and wait for netdev_put() by Thread A.
Thread A, however, must hold RTNL after the unlock in dev_ifsioc(),
which may take long under RTNL pressure, resulting in the splat by
Thread B.
Thread A (SIOCBRDELIF) Thread B (SIOCBRDELBR)
sock_ioctl sock_ioctl
- sock_do_ioctl - br_ioctl_call
- dev_ioctl - br_ioctl_stub
|- rtnl_lock |
|- dev_ifsioc '
' |- dev = __dev_get_by_name(...)
|- netdev_hold(dev, ...) .
/ |- rtnl_unlock ------. |
| |- br_ioctl_call ---> |- rtnl_lock Race | | - br_ioctl_stub |- br_del_bridge
Window | | | |- dev = __dev_get_by_name(...)
| | | May take long | - br_dev_delete(dev, ...) | | | under RTNL pressure | - unregister_netdevice_queue(dev, ...)
| | | | - rtnl_unlock \ | |- rtnl_lock <-' - netdev_run_todo
| |- ... - netdev_run_todo | - rtnl_unlock |- __rtnl_unlock
| |- netdev_wait_allrefs_any
|- netdev_put(dev, ...) <----------------'
Wait refcnt decrement
and log splat below
To avoid blocking SIOCBRDELBR unnecessarily, let's not call
dev_ioctl() for SIOCBRADDIF and SIOCBRDELIF.
In the dev_ioctl() path, we do the following:
Copy struct ifreq by get_user_ifreq in sock_do_ioctl()
Check CAP_NET_ADMIN in dev_ioctl()
Call dev_load() in dev_ioctl()
Fetch the master dev from ifr.ifr_name in dev_ifsioc()
can be done by request_module() in br_ioctl_call(), so we move
1., 2., and 4. to br_ioctl_stub().
Note that 2. is also checked later in add_del_if(), but it's better
performed before RTNL.
SIOCBRADDIF and SIOCBRDELIF have been processed in dev_ioctl() since
the pre-git era, and there seems to be no specific reason to process
them there.
[0]:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for wpan3 to become free. Usage count = 2
ref_tracker: wpan3@ffff8880662d8608 has 1/1 users at
__netdev_tracker_alloc include/linux/netdevice.h:4282 [inline]
netdev_hold include/linux/netdevice.h:4311 [inline]
dev_ifsioc+0xc6a/0x1160 net/core/dev_ioctl.c:624
dev_ioctl+0x255/0x10c0 net/core/dev_ioctl.c:826
sock_do_ioctl+0x1ca/0x260 net/socket.c:1213
sock_ioctl+0x23a/0x6c0 net/socket.c:1318
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:906 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:892 [inline]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x1a4/0x210 fs/ioctl.c:892
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xcb/0x250 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
Impact
CVE-2025-22111 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (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-2025-22111? CVE-2025-22111 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-22111? CVE-2025-22111 has a CVSS score of 5.5 (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-2025-22111? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-22111 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-22111 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-22111 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-2025-22111 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.