CVE-2025-39948

CVE-2025-39948 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ice: fix Rx page leak on...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ice: fix Rx page leak on multi-buffer frames

The ice_put_rx_mbuf() function handles calling ice_put_rx_buf() for each
buffer in the current frame. This function was introduced as part of
handling multi-buffer XDP support in the ice driver.

It works by iterating over the buffers from first_desc up to 1 plus the
total number of fragments in the frame, cached from before the XDP program
was executed.

If the hardware posts a descriptor with a size of 0, the logic used in
ice_put_rx_mbuf() breaks. Such descriptors get skipped and don't get added
as fragments in ice_add_xdp_frag. Since the buffer isn't counted as a
fragment, we do not iterate over it in ice_put_rx_mbuf(), and thus we don't
call ice_put_rx_buf().

Because we don't call ice_put_rx_buf(), we don't attempt to re-use the
page or free it. This leaves a stale page in the ring, as we don't
increment next_to_alloc.

The ice_reuse_rx_page() assumes that the next_to_alloc has been incremented
properly, and that it always points to a buffer with a NULL page. Since
this function doesn't check, it will happily recycle a page over the top
of the next_to_alloc buffer, losing track of the old page.

Note that this leak only occurs for multi-buffer frames. The
ice_put_rx_mbuf() function always handles at least one buffer, so a
single-buffer frame will always get handled correctly. It is not clear
precisely why the hardware hands us descriptors with a size of 0 sometimes,
but it happens somewhat regularly with "jumbo frames" used by 9K MTU.

To fix ice_put_rx_mbuf(), we need to make sure to call ice_put_rx_buf() on
all buffers between first_desc and next_to_clean. Borrow the logic of a
similar function in i40e used for this same purpose. Use the same logic
also in ice_get_pgcnts().

Instead of iterating over just the number of fragments, use a loop which
iterates until the current index reaches to the next_to_clean element just
past the current frame. Unlike i40e, the ice_put_rx_mbuf() function does
call ice_put_rx_buf() on the last buffer of the frame indicating the end of
packet.

For non-linear (multi-buffer) frames, we need to take care when adjusting
the pagecnt_bias. An XDP program might release fragments from the tail of
the frame, in which case that fragment page is already released. Only
update the pagecnt_bias for the first descriptor and fragments still
remaining post-XDP program. Take care to only access the shared info for
fragmented buffers, as this avoids a significant cache miss.

The xdp_xmit value only needs to be updated if an XDP program is run, and
only once per packet. Drop the xdp_xmit pointer argument from
ice_put_rx_mbuf(). Instead, set xdp_xmit in the ice_clean_rx_irq() function
directly. This avoids needing to pass the argument and avoids an extra
bit-wise OR for each buffer in the frame.

Move the increment of the ntc local variable to ensure its updated before
all calls to ice_get_pgcnts() or ice_put_rx_mbuf(), as the loop logic
requires the index of the element just after the current frame.

Now that we use an index pointer in the ring to identify the packet, we no
longer need to track or cache the number of fragments in the rx_ring.

Impact

CVE-2025-39948 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

Not available

Security releases

Not available

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

Not available

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2025-39948? CVE-2025-39948 is a medium-severity security vulnerability. No fixed version is listed yet.
  2. How severe is CVE-2025-39948? CVE-2025-39948 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.
  3. Is there a fix for CVE-2025-39948? No fixed version is listed for CVE-2025-39948 yet. Monitor the advisory for updates and apply mitigations in the interim.
  4. Is CVE-2025-39948 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-39948 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
  5. What actually determines whether CVE-2025-39948 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.

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.