Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iavf: get rid of the crit...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
iavf: get rid of the crit lock
Get rid of the crit lock.
That frees us from the error prone logic of try_locks.
Thanks to netdev_lock() by Jakub it is now easy, and in most cases we were
protected by it already - replace crit lock by netdev lock when it was not
the case.
Lockdep reports that we should cancel the work under crit_lock [splat1],
and that was the scheme we have mostly followed since [1] by Slawomir.
But when that is done we still got into deadlocks [splat2]. So instead
we should look at the bigger problem, namely "weird locking/scheduling"
of the iavf. The first step to fix that is to remove the crit lock.
I will followup with a -next series that simplifies scheduling/tasks.
Cancel the work without netdev lock (weird unlock+lock scheme),
to fix the [splat2] (which would be totally ugly if we would kept
the crit lock).
Extend protected part of iavf_watchdog_task() to include scheduling
more work.
Note that the removed comment in iavf_reset_task() was misplaced,
it belonged to inside of the removed if condition, so it's gone now.
[splat1] - w/o this patch - The deadlock during VF removal:
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
sh/3825 is trying to acquire lock:
((work_completion)(&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: start_flush_work+0x1a1/0x470
but task is already holding lock:
(&adapter->crit_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: iavf_remove+0xd1/0x690 [iavf]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
[splat2] - when cancelling work under crit lock, w/o this series,
see [2] for the band aid attempt
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
sh/3550 is trying to acquire lock:
((wq_completion)iavf){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: touch_wq_lockdep_map+0x26/0x90
but task is already holding lock:
(&dev->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: iavf_remove+0xa6/0x6e0 [iavf]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
[1] fc2e6b3b132a ("iavf: Rework mutexes for better synchronisation")
[2] https://github.com/pkitszel/linux/commit/52dddbfc2bb60294083f5711a158a
Impact
CVE-2025-38311 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-2025-38311? CVE-2025-38311 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-38311? CVE-2025-38311 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-2025-38311? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-38311 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-38311 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-38311 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-2025-38311 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.