Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/resctrl: Fix allocation...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86/resctrl: Fix allocation of cleanest CLOSID on platforms with no monitors
Commit
6eac36bb9eb0 ("x86/resctrl: Allocate the cleanest CLOSID by searching closid_num_dirty_rmid")
added logic that causes resctrl to search for the CLOSID with the fewest dirty
cache lines when creating a new control group, if requested by the arch code.
This depends on the values read from the llc_occupancy counters. The logic is
applicable to architectures where the CLOSID effectively forms part of the
monitoring identifier and so do not allow complete freedom to choose an unused
monitoring identifier for a given CLOSID.
This support missed that some platforms may not have these counters. This
causes a NULL pointer dereference when creating a new control group as the
array was not allocated by dom_data_init().
As this feature isn't necessary on platforms that don't have cache occupancy
monitors, add this to the check that occurs when a new control group is
allocated.
Impact
The application dereferences a null pointer, causing a crash. Typical impact: denial of service via crash.
CVE-2025-38049 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-2025-38049? CVE-2025-38049 is a medium-severity null pointer dereference vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet. The application dereferences a null pointer, causing a crash.
- How severe is CVE-2025-38049? CVE-2025-38049 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-2025-38049? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-38049 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-38049 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-38049 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-2025-38049 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.