Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Tell memcg to use...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Tell memcg to use allow_spinning=false path in bpf_timer_init()
Currently, calling bpf_map_kmalloc_node() from __bpf_async_init() can
cause various locking issues; see the following stack trace (edited for
style) as one example:
...
[10.011566] do_raw_spin_lock.cold
[10.011570] try_to_wake_up (5) double-acquiring the same
[10.011575] kick_pool rq_lock, causing a hardlockup
[10.011579] __queue_work
[10.011582] queue_work_on
[10.011585] kernfs_notify
[10.011589] cgroup_file_notify
[10.011593] try_charge_memcg (4) memcg accounting raises an
[10.011597] obj_cgroup_charge_pages MEMCG_MAX event
[10.011599] obj_cgroup_charge_account
[10.011600] __memcg_slab_post_alloc_hook
[10.011603] __kmalloc_node_noprof
...
[10.011611] bpf_map_kmalloc_node
[10.011612] __bpf_async_init
[10.011615] bpf_timer_init (3) BPF calls bpf_timer_init()
[10.011617] bpf_prog_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_fcg_runnable
[10.011619] bpf__sched_ext_ops_runnable
[10.011620] enqueue_task_scx (2) BPF runs with rq_lock held
[10.011622] enqueue_task
[10.011626] ttwu_do_activate
[10.011629] sched_ttwu_pending (1) grabs rq_lock
...
The above was reproduced on bpf-next (b338cf849ec8) by modifying
./tools/sched_ext/scx_flatcg.bpf.c to call bpf_timer_init() during
ops.runnable(), and hacking the memcg accounting code a bit to make
a bpf_timer_init() call more likely to raise an MEMCG_MAX event.
We have also run into other similar variants (both internally and on
bpf-next), including double-acquiring cgroup_file_kn_lock, the same
worker_pool::lock, etc.
As suggested by Shakeel, fix this by using __GFP_HIGH instead of
GFP_ATOMIC in __bpf_async_init(), so that e.g. if try_charge_memcg()
raises an MEMCG_MAX event, we call __memcg_memory_event() with
@allow_spinning=false and avoid calling cgroup_file_notify() there.
Depends on mm patch
"memcg: skip cgroup_file_notify if spinning is not allowed":
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
v0 approach s/bpf_map_kmalloc_node/bpf_mem_alloc/
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
v1 approach:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Impact
CVE-2025-39886 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-2025-39886? CVE-2025-39886 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
- How severe is CVE-2025-39886? CVE-2025-39886 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-2025-39886? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-39886 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
- Is CVE-2025-39886 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-39886 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-2025-39886 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.