CVE-2025-21664

MEDIUM
Published Jan 21, 2025 Modified May 12, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dm thin: make get_first_thin use rcu-safe list first function The documentation in rculist.h explains the absence of list_empty_rcu() and cautions programmers against relying on a list_empty() -> list_first() sequence in RCU safe code. This is because each of these functions performs its own READ_ONCE() of the list head. This can lead to a situation where the list_empty() sees a valid list entry, but the subsequent list_first() sees a different view of list head state after a modification. In the case of dm-thin, this author had a production box crash from a GP fault in the process_deferred_bios path. This function saw a valid list head in get_first_thin() but when it subsequently dereferenced that and turned it into a thin_c, it got the inside of the struct pool, since the list was now empty and referring to itself. The kernel on which this occurred printed both a warning about a refcount_t being saturated, and a UBSAN error for an out-of-bounds cpuid access in the queued spinlock, prior to the fault itself. When the resulting kdump was examined, it was possible to see another thread patiently waiting in thin_dtr's synchronize_rcu. The thin_dtr call managed to pull the thin_c out of the active thins list (and have it be the last entry in the active_thins list) at just the wrong moment which lead to this crash. Fortunately, the fix here is straight forward. Switch get_first_thin() function to use list_first_or_null_rcu() which performs just a single READ_ONCE() and returns NULL if the list is already empty. This was run against the devicemapper test suite's thin-provisioning suites for delete and suspend and no regressions were observed.

Is your site exposed to CVE-2025-21664?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

CVSS v3.1 Score

5.5
MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Affected Products

Vendor Product
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2025-21664? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: dm thin: make get_first_thin use rcu-safe list first function The documentation in rculist.h explains the absence of list_empty_rcu() and cautions programmers against relying on a list_empty() -> list_first() sequence in RCU safe code. This is because each of these functions performs its own READ_ONCE() of the list head. This can lead to a situation where the list_empty() sees a valid list entry, but the subsequent list_first() sees a different view of list head state after a modification. In the case of dm-thin, this author had a production box crash from a GP fault in the process_deferred_bios path. This function saw a valid list head in get_first_thin() but when it subsequently dereferenced that and turned it into a thin_c, it got the inside of the struct pool, since the list was now empty and referring to itself. The kernel on which this occurred printed both a warning about a refcount_t being saturated, and a UBSAN error for an out-of-bounds cpuid access in the queued spinlock, prior to the fault itself. When the resulting kdump was examined, it was possible to see another thread patiently waiting in thin_dtr's synchronize_rcu. The thin_dtr call managed to pull the thin_c out of the active thins list (and have it be the last entry in the active_thins list) at just the wrong moment which lead to this crash. Fortunately, the fix here is straight forward. Switch get_first_thin() function to use list_first_or_null_rcu() which performs just a single READ_ONCE() and returns NULL if the list is already empty. This was run against the devicemapper test suite's thin-provisioning suites for delete and suspend and no regressions were observed. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.5 (MEDIUM).
How severe is CVE-2025-21664? +
CVE-2025-21664 has a CVSS v3.1 score of 5.5 out of 10, rated MEDIUM. This is a medium-severity vulnerability that should be remediated as part of regular maintenance.
What products are affected by CVE-2025-21664? +
CVE-2025-21664 affects products from linux, specifically: linux_kernel. Check the affected products table above for specific version ranges.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2025-21664? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Related Vulnerabilities

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2025-21664 — free, no signup required.