Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vmxnet3: Fix malformed...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
vmxnet3: Fix malformed packet sizing in vmxnet3_process_xdp
vmxnet3 driver's XDP handling is buggy for packet sizes using ring0 (that
is, packet sizes between 128 - 3k bytes).
We noticed MTU-related connectivity issues with Cilium's service load-
balancing in case of vmxnet3 as NIC underneath. A simple curl to a HTTP
backend service where the XDP LB was doing IPIP encap led to overly large
packet sizes but only for some of the packets (e.g. HTTP GET request)
while others (e.g. the prior TCP 3WHS) looked completely fine on the wire.
In fact, the pcap recording on the backend node actually revealed that the
node with the XDP LB was leaking uninitialized kernel data onto the wire
for the affected packets, for example, while the packets should have been
152 bytes their actual size was 1482 bytes, so the remainder after 152 bytes
was padded with whatever other data was in that page at the time (e.g. we
saw user/payload data from prior processed packets).
We only noticed this through an MTU issue, e.g. when the XDP LB node and
the backend node both had the same MTU (e.g. 1500) then the curl request
got dropped on the backend node's NIC given the packet was too large even
though the IPIP-encapped packet normally would never even come close to
the MTU limit. Lowering the MTU on the XDP LB (e.g. 1480) allowed to let
the curl request succeed (which also indicates that the kernel ignored the
padding, and thus the issue wasn't very user-visible).
Commit e127ce7699c1 ("vmxnet3: Fix missing reserved tailroom") was too eager
to also switch xdp_prepare_buff() from rcd->len to rbi->len. It really needs
to stick to rcd->len which is the actual packet length from the descriptor.
The latter we also feed into vmxnet3_process_xdp_small(), by the way, and
it indicates the correct length needed to initialize the xdp->{data,data_end}
parts. For e127ce7699c1 ("vmxnet3: Fix missing reserved tailroom") the
relevant part was adapting xdp_init_buff() to address the warning given the
xdp_data_hard_end() depends on xdp->frame_sz. With that fixed, traffic on
the wire looks good again.
Impact
CVE-2025-37799 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-2025-37799? CVE-2025-37799 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-37799? CVE-2025-37799 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-2025-37799? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-37799 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-37799 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-37799 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-2025-37799 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.