CVE-2025-21876
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: iommu/vt-d: Fix suspicious RCU usage Commit <d74169ceb0d2> ("iommu/vt-d: Allocate DMAR fault interrupts locally") moved the call to enable_drhd_fault_handling() to a code path that does not hold any lock while traversing the drhd list. Fix it by ensuring the dmar_global_lock lock is held when traversing the drhd list. Without this fix, the following warning is triggered: ============================= WARNING: suspicious RCU usage 6.14.0-rc3 #55 Not tainted ----------------------------- drivers/iommu/intel/dmar.c:2046 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! other info that might help us debug this: rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 2 locks held by cpuhp/1/23: #0: ffffffff84a67c50 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0x87/0x2c0 #1: ffffffff84a6a380 (cpuhp_state-up){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0x87/0x2c0 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 23 Comm: cpuhp/1 Not tainted 6.14.0-rc3 #55 Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0xb7/0xd0 lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x159/0x1f0 ? __pfx_enable_drhd_fault_handling+0x10/0x10 enable_drhd_fault_handling+0x151/0x180 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x1df/0x990 cpuhp_thread_fun+0x1ea/0x2c0 smpboot_thread_fn+0x1f5/0x2e0 ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x12a/0x2d0 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x4a/0x60 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> Holding the lock in enable_drhd_fault_handling() triggers a lockdep splat about a possible deadlock between dmar_global_lock and cpu_hotplug_lock. This is avoided by not holding dmar_global_lock when calling iommu_device_register(), which initiates the device probe process.
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>= 6.10, < 6.12.18>= 6.13, < 6.13.6= 6.14CVSS 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 · scoped6.12.186.13.6
Upgrade to Linux kernel 6.12.18+, 6.13.6+, or 6.14.1+ (or the equivalent stable release from your distribution vendor)
- Identify the current kernel version using `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version`
- If running a distribution kernel, check with your distribution vendor for the specific patch version (e.g., 6.12.18, 6.13.6, or 6.14.1+)
- If running an upstream kernel, upgrade to kernel version 6.12.18 or later, 6.13.6 or later, or 6.14.1 or later
- Reboot the system to load the patched kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking that the RCU warning no longer appears in kernel logs (dmesg)
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-2025-21876 — 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-2025-21876 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