CVE-2025-21692
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: net: sched: fix ets qdisc OOB Indexing Haowei Yan <[email protected]> found that ets_class_from_arg() can index an Out-Of-Bound class in ets_class_from_arg() when passed clid of 0. The overflow may cause local privilege escalation. [ 18.852298] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 18.853271] UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in net/sched/sch_ets.c:93:20 [ 18.853743] index 18446744073709551615 is out of range for type 'ets_class [16]' [ 18.854254] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 1275 Comm: poc Not tainted 6.12.6-dirty #17 [ 18.854821] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 [ 18.856532] Call Trace: [ 18.857441] <TASK> [ 18.858227] dump_stack_lvl+0xc2/0xf0 [ 18.859607] dump_stack+0x10/0x20 [ 18.860908] __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0xa7/0xf0 [ 18.864022] ets_class_change+0x3d6/0x3f0 [ 18.864322] tc_ctl_tclass+0x251/0x910 [ 18.864587] ? lock_acquire+0x5e/0x140 [ 18.865113] ? __mutex_lock+0x9c/0xe70 [ 18.866009] ? __mutex_lock+0xa34/0xe70 [ 18.866401] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x170/0x6f0 [ 18.866806] ? __lock_acquire+0x578/0xc10 [ 18.867184] ? __pfx_rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x10/0x10 [ 18.867503] netlink_rcv_skb+0x59/0x110 [ 18.867776] rtnetlink_rcv+0x15/0x30 [ 18.868159] netlink_unicast+0x1c3/0x2b0 [ 18.868440] netlink_sendmsg+0x239/0x4b0 [ 18.868721] ____sys_sendmsg+0x3e2/0x410 [ 18.869012] ___sys_sendmsg+0x88/0xe0 [ 18.869276] ? rseq_ip_fixup+0x198/0x260 [ 18.869563] ? rseq_update_cpu_node_id+0x10a/0x190 [ 18.869900] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0x5a/0xd0 [ 18.870196] ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0xcc/0x220 [ 18.870547] ? do_syscall_64+0x93/0x150 [ 18.870821] ? __memcg_slab_free_hook+0x69/0x290 [ 18.871157] __sys_sendmsg+0x69/0xd0 [ 18.871416] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1d/0x30 [ 18.871699] x64_sys_call+0x9e2/0x2670 [ 18.871979] do_syscall_64+0x87/0x150 [ 18.873280] ? do_syscall_64+0x93/0x150 [ 18.874742] ? lock_release+0x7b/0x160 [ 18.876157] ? do_user_addr_fault+0x5ce/0x8f0 [ 18.877833] ? irqentry_exit_to_user_mode+0xc2/0x210 [ 18.879608] ? irqentry_exit+0x77/0xb0 [ 18.879808] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x15/0x70 [ 18.880023] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x15/0x70 [ 18.880223] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x15/0x70 [ 18.880426] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 18.880683] RIP: 0033:0x44a957 [ 18.880851] Code: ff ff e8 fc 00 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 90 f3 0f 1e fa 64 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 10 b8 2e 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 51 c3 48 83 ec 28 89 54 24 1c 48 8974 24 10 [ 18.881766] RSP: 002b:00007ffcdd00fad8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002e [ 18.882149] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffcdd010db8 RCX: 000000000044a957 [ 18.882507] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00007ffcdd00fb70 RDI: 0000000000000003 [ 18.885037] RBP: 00007ffcdd010bc0 R08: 000000000703c770 R09: 000000000703c7c0 [ 18.887203] R10: 0000000000000080 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000001 [ 18.888026] R13: 00007ffcdd010da8 R14: 00000000004ca7d0 R15: 0000000000000001 [ 18.888395] </TASK> [ 18.888610] ---[ end trace ]---
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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>= 5.6, < 5.10.234>= 5.11, < 5.15.178>= 5.16, < 6.1.128>= 6.2, < 6.6.75>= 6.7, < 6.12.12= 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped5.10.2345.15.1786.1.128
5.10.234 (for 5.6-5.10.x), 5.15.178 (for 5.11-5.15.x), 6.1.128 (for 5.16-6.1.x), or 6.6.75 (for 6.2-6.6.x)
- Identify the current kernel version using `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version`
- Determine which version branch your current kernel belongs to (5.10.x, 5.15.x, 6.1.x, or 6.6.x)
- Upgrade to the fixed release for your branch: 5.10.234, 5.15.178, 6.1.128, or 6.6.75 respectively
- Update bootloader configuration if needed and reboot the system to load the new kernel
- Verify the kernel has been updated successfully 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-2025-21692 — 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-2025-21692 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