GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-GRCG-MGX8-MFVF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-14 15:31
VLAI
Details

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

eventpoll: Fix semi-unbounded recursion

Ensure that epoll instances can never form a graph deeper than EP_MAX_NESTS+1 links.

Currently, ep_loop_check_proc() ensures that the graph is loop-free and does some recursion depth checks, but those recursion depth checks don't limit the depth of the resulting tree for two reasons:

  • They don't look upwards in the tree.
  • If there are multiple downwards paths of different lengths, only one of the paths is actually considered for the depth check since commit 28d82dc1c4ed ("epoll: limit paths").

Essentially, the current recursion depth check in ep_loop_check_proc() just serves to prevent it from recursing too deeply while checking for loops.

A more thorough check is done in reverse_path_check() after the new graph edge has already been created; this checks, among other things, that no paths going upwards from any non-epoll file with a length of more than 5 edges exist. However, this check does not apply to non-epoll files.

As a result, it is possible to recurse to a depth of at least roughly 500, tested on v6.15. (I am unsure if deeper recursion is possible; and this may have changed with commit 8c44dac8add7 ("eventpoll: Fix priority inversion problem").)

To fix it:

  1. In ep_loop_check_proc(), note the subtree depth of each visited node, and use subtree depths for the total depth calculation even when a subtree has already been visited.
  2. Add ep_get_upwards_depth_proc() for similarly determining the maximum depth of an upwards walk.
  3. In ep_loop_check(), use these values to limit the total path length between epoll nodes to EP_MAX_NESTS edges.
Severity
5.5 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-38614"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-674"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-08-19T17:15:40Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\neventpoll: Fix semi-unbounded recursion\n\nEnsure that epoll instances can never form a graph deeper than\nEP_MAX_NESTS+1 links.\n\nCurrently, ep_loop_check_proc() ensures that the graph is loop-free and\ndoes some recursion depth checks, but those recursion depth checks don\u0027t\nlimit the depth of the resulting tree for two reasons:\n\n - They don\u0027t look upwards in the tree.\n - If there are multiple downwards paths of different lengths, only one of\n   the paths is actually considered for the depth check since commit\n   28d82dc1c4ed (\"epoll: limit paths\").\n\nEssentially, the current recursion depth check in ep_loop_check_proc() just\nserves to prevent it from recursing too deeply while checking for loops.\n\nA more thorough check is done in reverse_path_check() after the new graph\nedge has already been created; this checks, among other things, that no\npaths going upwards from any non-epoll file with a length of more than 5\nedges exist. However, this check does not apply to non-epoll files.\n\nAs a result, it is possible to recurse to a depth of at least roughly 500,\ntested on v6.15. (I am unsure if deeper recursion is possible; and this may\nhave changed with commit 8c44dac8add7 (\"eventpoll: Fix priority inversion\nproblem\").)\n\nTo fix it:\n\n1. In ep_loop_check_proc(), note the subtree depth of each visited node,\nand use subtree depths for the total depth calculation even when a subtree\nhas already been visited.\n2. Add ep_get_upwards_depth_proc() for similarly determining the maximum\ndepth of an upwards walk.\n3. In ep_loop_check(), use these values to limit the total path length\nbetween epoll nodes to EP_MAX_NESTS edges.",
  "id": "GHSA-grcg-mgx8-mfvf",
  "modified": "2026-07-14T15:31:27Z",
  "published": "2025-08-19T18:31:34Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-38614"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-019113.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-032379.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-082556.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1b13b033062824495554e836a1ff5f85ccf6b039"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2a0c0c974bea9619c6f41794775ae4b97530e0e6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3542c90797bc3ab83ebab54b737d751cf3682036"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/71379495ab70eaba19224bd71b5b9b399eb85e04"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7a2125962c42d5336ca0495a9ce4cb38a63e9161"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ea5f97dbdcb1651581a22bd10afd2f0dd9dc11d6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f2e467a48287c868818085aa35389a224d226732"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00008.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.


Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.