Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix ...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported
Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN
from a user port fails with -ENOENT:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -> mv88e6xxx_mst_put(),
which tries to find an MST entry in &chip->msts associated with the SID,
but fails and returns -ENOENT as such.
But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not
surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put()
not exit early:
if (!sid)
return 0;
And the answer seems to be simple: the sid comes from vlan.sid which
supposedly was previously populated by mv88e6xxx_vtu_get().
But some chip->info->ops->vtu_getnext() implementations do not populate
vlan.sid, for example see mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). In that case,
later in mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() we are using a garbage sid which is
just residual stack memory.
Testing for sid == 0 covers all cases of a non-bridge VLAN or a bridge
VLAN mapped to the default MSTI. For some chips, SID 0 is valid and
installed by mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(). A chip which does not support the
STU would implicitly only support mapping all VLANs to the default MSTI,
so although SID 0 is not valid, it would be sufficient, if we were to
zero-initialize the vlan structure, to fix the bug, due to the
coincidence that a test for vlan.sid == 0 already exists and leads to
the same (correct) behavior.
Another option which would be sufficient would be to add a test for
mv88e6xxx_has_stu() inside mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), symmetric to the one
which already exists in mv88e6xxx_mst_get(). But that placement means
the caller will have to dereference vlan.sid, which means it will access
uninitialized memory, which is not nice even if it ignores it later.
So we end up making both modifications, in order to not rely just on the
sid == 0 coincidence, but also to avoid having uninitialized structure
fields which might get temporarily accessed.
Impact
CVE-2025-37865 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-2025-37865? CVE-2025-37865 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-37865? CVE-2025-37865 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-2025-37865? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-37865 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-37865 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-37865 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-2025-37865 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.