CVE-2025-21683
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix bpf_sk_select_reuseport() memory leak As pointed out in the original comment, lookup in sockmap can return a TCP ESTABLISHED socket. Such TCP socket may have had SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_EBPF set before it was ESTABLISHED. In other words, a non-NULL sk_reuseport_cb does not imply a non-refcounted socket. Drop sk's reference in both error paths. unreferenced object 0xffff888101911800 (size 2048): comm "test_progs", pid 44109, jiffies 4297131437 hex dump (first 32 bytes): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 80 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ backtrace (crc 9336483b): __kmalloc_noprof+0x3bf/0x560 __reuseport_alloc+0x1d/0x40 reuseport_alloc+0xca/0x150 reuseport_attach_prog+0x87/0x140 sk_reuseport_attach_bpf+0xc8/0x100 sk_setsockopt+0x1181/0x1990 do_sock_setsockopt+0x12b/0x160 __sys_setsockopt+0x7b/0xc0 __x64_sys_setsockopt+0x1b/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x93/0x180 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisAllocated memory is never released on some path, so a long-running service or a repeatedly triggered request steadily consumes memory until performance degrades or the process crashes. Attackers exploit it by simply driving the leaking path. Remediation is pairing every allocation with a release and using ownership patterns or tooling to catch what leaks.
General guidance for the memory leak class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 5.8, < 5.15.177>= 5.16, < 6.1.127>= 6.2, < 6.6.74>= 6.7, < 6.12.11= 6.13CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped5.15.1776.1.1276.6.74
5.15.177, 6.1.127, 6.6.74, or 6.12.11 (whichever corresponds to your current kernel branch)
- Identify the currently running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which version range your current kernel falls into from the affected versions list
- Upgrade to the appropriate fixed kernel version: 5.15.177, 6.1.127, 6.6.74, or 6.12.11 depending on your current branch
- On Debian/Ubuntu: `sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade linux-image-generic`
- On RHEL/CentOS: `sudo yum update kernel`
- On Fedora: `sudo dnf update kernel`
- Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel: `sudo reboot`
- Verify the new kernel version is running with `uname -r`
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-21683 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-21683 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data