ice: fix Tx scheduler error handling in XDP callback
Affects Linux kernel 5.5.0 up to the fixed releases in the ice driver when an XDP program is loaded and a Tx scheduler update fails. Fixed in 6.6.94, 6.12.34 and 6.15.3 on their branches.
- Published
- Last modified
- Where the record stands: published, rejected by its publisher, or superseded by another id.What do these mean? →
- published
- Whether CISA lists it in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog: proof that attackers are using it.What do these mean? →
- Not listed in CISA KEV
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Specific setups only
- Fix
- Fixed in 6.6.94, 6.12.34, 6.15.3
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
- Exploitation: none
- Automatable: no
- Technical impact: total
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ice: fix Tx scheduler error handling in XDP callback When the XDP program is loaded, the XDP callback adds new Tx queues. This means that the callback must update the Tx scheduler with the new queue number. In the event of a Tx scheduler failure, the XDP callback should also fail and roll back any changes previously made for XDP preparation. The previous implementation had a bug that not all changes made by the XDP callback were rolled back. This caused the crash with the following call trace: [ +9.549584] ice 0000:ca:00.0: Failed VSI LAN queue config for XDP, error: -5 [ +0.382335] Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x50a2250a90495525: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI [ +0.010710] CPU: 103 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/103 Not tainted 6.14.0-net-next-mar-31+ #14 PREEMPT(voluntary) [ +0.010175] Hardware name: Intel Corporation M50CYP2SBSTD/M50CYP2SBSTD, BIOS SE5C620.86B.01.01.0005.2202160810 02/16/2022 [ +0.010946] RIP: 0010:__ice_update_sample+0x39/0xe0 [ice] [...] [ +0.002715] Call Trace: [ +0.002452] <IRQ> [ +0.002021] ? __die_body.cold+0x19/0x29 [ +0.003922] ? die_addr+0x3c/0x60 [ +0.003319] ? exc_general_protection+0x17c/0x400 [ +0.004707] ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x26/0x30 [ +0.004879] ? __ice_update_sample+0x39/0xe0 [ice] [ +0.004835] ice_napi_poll+0x665/0x680 [ice] [ +0.004320] __napi_poll+0x28/0x190 [ +0.003500] net_rx_action+0x198/0x360 [ +0.003752] ? update_rq_clock+0x39/0x220 [ +0.004013] handle_softirqs+0xf1/0x340 [ +0.003840] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xf/0x1f0 [ +0.003925] __irq_exit_rcu+0xc2/0xe0 [ +0.003665] common_interrupt+0x85/0xa0 [ +0.003839] </IRQ> [ +0.002098] <TASK> [ +0.002106] asm_common_interrupt+0x26/0x40 [ +0.004184] RIP: 0010:cpuidle_enter_state+0xd3/0x690 Fix this by performing the missing unmapping of XDP queues from q_vectors and setting the XDP rings pointer back to NULL after all those queues are released. Also, add an immediate exit from the XDP callback in case of ring preparation failure.
Timeline
- CVE published
- CISA SSVC assessment
Exploitation: none · Automatable: no · Technical impact: total
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- Linux Linux
Version range not reported
- Linux Linux
5.5
- KernelLinux
From 5.5.0 · fixed in 6.6.94; From 6.7.0 · fixed in 6.12.34; From 6.13.0 · fixed in 6.15.3
References 5
Questions about CVE-2025-38127
What does this mean?
When an XDP program is loaded, the ice driver adds new Tx queues. If the Tx scheduler update then fails, not all of those changes are rolled back, which can crash the kernel with a general protection fault.Source: git.kernel.org
Am I affected, and how do I check?
Linux kernel versions from 5.5.0 up to 6.6.94, from 6.7.0 up to 6.12.34, and from 6.13.0 up to 6.15.3 are listed as affected. Check the kernel version with uname -r and whether the ice driver is in use with ethtool -i on the network interface.Source: git.kernel.org
What should I do about it?
Upgrade to kernel 6.6.94, 6.12.34, 6.15.3 or a later release on the same branch.Source: git.kernel.org
Is it being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data