CVE-2025-21722
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: nilfs2: do not force clear folio if buffer is referenced Patch series "nilfs2: protect busy buffer heads from being force-cleared". This series fixes the buffer head state inconsistency issues reported by syzbot that occurs when the filesystem is corrupted and falls back to read-only, and the associated buffer head use-after-free issue. This patch (of 2): Syzbot has reported that after nilfs2 detects filesystem corruption and falls back to read-only, inconsistencies in the buffer state may occur. One of the inconsistencies is that when nilfs2 calls mark_buffer_dirty() to set a data or metadata buffer as dirty, but it detects that the buffer is not in the uptodate state: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6049 at fs/buffer.c:1177 mark_buffer_dirty+0x2e5/0x520 fs/buffer.c:1177 ... Call Trace: <TASK> nilfs_palloc_commit_alloc_entry+0x4b/0x160 fs/nilfs2/alloc.c:598 nilfs_ifile_create_inode+0x1dd/0x3a0 fs/nilfs2/ifile.c:73 nilfs_new_inode+0x254/0x830 fs/nilfs2/inode.c:344 nilfs_mkdir+0x10d/0x340 fs/nilfs2/namei.c:218 vfs_mkdir+0x2f9/0x4f0 fs/namei.c:4257 do_mkdirat+0x264/0x3a0 fs/namei.c:4280 __do_sys_mkdirat fs/namei.c:4295 [inline] __se_sys_mkdirat fs/namei.c:4293 [inline] __x64_sys_mkdirat+0x87/0xa0 fs/namei.c:4293 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f The other is when nilfs_btree_propagate(), which propagates the dirty state to the ancestor nodes of a b-tree that point to a dirty buffer, detects that the origin buffer is not dirty, even though it should be: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5245 at fs/nilfs2/btree.c:2089 nilfs_btree_propagate+0xc79/0xdf0 fs/nilfs2/btree.c:2089 ... Call Trace: <TASK> nilfs_bmap_propagate+0x75/0x120 fs/nilfs2/bmap.c:345 nilfs_collect_file_data+0x4d/0xd0 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:587 nilfs_segctor_apply_buffers+0x184/0x340 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1006 nilfs_segctor_scan_file+0x28c/0xa50 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1045 nilfs_segctor_collect_blocks fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1216 [inline] nilfs_segctor_collect fs/nilfs2/segment.c:1540 [inline] nilfs_segctor_do_construct+0x1c28/0x6b90 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2115 nilfs_segctor_construct+0x181/0x6b0 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2479 nilfs_segctor_thread_construct fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2587 [inline] nilfs_segctor_thread+0x69e/0xe80 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2701 kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389 ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244 </TASK> Both of these issues are caused by the callbacks that handle the page/folio write requests, forcibly clear various states, including the working state of the buffers they hold, at unexpected times when they detect read-only fallback. Fix these issues by checking if the buffer is referenced before clearing the page/folio state, and skipping the clear if it is.
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 analysisMemory is used after it has been freed, so its contents — now potentially attacker-controlled — drive the program's behaviour. With careful heap grooming this becomes code execution. The fix requires disciplined ownership of memory and often a targeted rework of the object lifecycle.
General guidance for the use after free 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>= 3.10, < 5.4.291>= 5.5, < 5.10.235>= 5.11, < 5.15.179>= 5.16, < 6.1.129>= 6.2, < 6.12.13>= 6.13, < 6.13.2CVSS 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 · scoped5.4.2915.10.2355.15.179
5.4.291+/5.10.235+/5.15.179+/6.1.129+ (stable kernel)
- Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using 'uname -r'
- Determine which version branch your kernel comes from (e.g., 5.4.x, 5.10.x, 5.15.x, or 6.1.x)
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to a fixed version for your branch: 5.4.291 or later for 5.4.x, 5.10.235 or later for 5.10.x, 5.15.179 or later for 5.15.x, or 6.1.129 or later for 6.1.x
- Apply the upgrade via your distribution's package manager (e.g., 'apt-get dist-upgrade', 'yum update', or 'dnf upgrade')
- Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- 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-2025-21722 — 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-2025-21722 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