Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: bpf: abort dispatch if...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
HID: bpf: abort dispatch if device destroyed
The current HID bpf implementation assumes no output report/request will
go through it after hid_bpf_destroy_device() has been called. This leads
to a bug that unplugging certain types of HID devices causes a cleaned-
up SRCU to be accessed. The bug was previously a hidden failure until a
recent x86 percpu change [1] made it access not-present pages.
The bug will be triggered if the conditions below are met:
A) a device under the driver has some LEDs on
B) hid_ll_driver->request() is uninplemented (e.g., logitech-djreceiver)
If condition A is met, hidinput_led_worker() is always scheduled after
hid_bpf_destroy_device().
hid_destroy_devicehid_bpf_destroy_device cleanup_srcu_struct(&hdev->bpf.srcu)hid_remove_device ...
led_classdev_unregister led_trigger_set(led_cdev, NULL)
led_set_brightness(led_cdev, LED_OFF) ...
input_inject_event input_event_dispose
hidinput_input_event schedule_work(&hid->led_work) [hidinput_led_worker]
This is fine when condition B is not met, where hidinput_led_worker()
calls hid_ll_driver->request(). This is the case for most HID drivers,
which implement it or use the generic one from usbhid. The driver itself
or an underlying driver will then abort processing the request.
Otherwise, hidinput_led_worker() tries hid_hw_output_report() and leads
to the bug.
hidinput_led_workerhid_hw_output_report dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report
srcu_read_lock(&hdev->bpf.srcu) srcu_read_unlock(&hdev->bpf.srcu, idx)
The bug has existed since the introduction [2] of
dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report(). However, the same bug also exists in
dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests(), and I've reproduced (no visible effect
because of the lack of [1], but confirmed bpf.destroyed == 1) the bug
against the commit (i.e., the Fixes:) introducing the function. This is
because hidinput_led_worker() falls back to hid_hw_raw_request() when
hid_ll_driver->output_report() is uninplemented (e.g., logitech-
djreceiver).
hidinput_led_workerhid_hw_output_report: -ENOSYS hid_hw_raw_request
dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests srcu_read_lock(&hdev->bpf.srcu)
` srcu_read_unlock(&hdev->bpf.srcu, idx)
Fix the issue by returning early in the two mentioned functions if
hid_bpf has been marked as destroyed. Though
dispatch_hid_bpf_device_event() handles input events, and there is no
evidence that it may be called after the destruction, the same check, as
a safety net, is also added to it to maintain the consistency among all
dispatch functions.
The impact of the bug on other architectures is unclear. Even if it acts
as a hidden failure, this is still dangerous because it corrupts
whatever is on the address calculated by SRCU. Thus, CC'ing the stable
list.
[1]: commit 9d7de2aa8b41 ("x86/percpu/64: Use relative percpu offsets")
[2]: commit 9286675a2aed ("HID: bpf: add HID-BPF hooks for
hid_hw_output_report")
Impact
CVE-2025-38016 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-2025-38016? CVE-2025-38016 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-38016? CVE-2025-38016 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-2025-38016? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-38016 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-38016 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-38016 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-2025-38016 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.