CVE-2025-21902
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: acpi: typec: ucsi: Introduce a ->poll_cci method For the ACPI backend of UCSI the UCSI "registers" are just a memory copy of the register values in an opregion. The ACPI implementation in the BIOS ensures that the opregion contents are synced to the embedded controller and it ensures that the registers (in particular CCI) are synced back to the opregion on notifications. While there is an ACPI call that syncs the actual registers to the opregion there is rarely a need to do this and on some ACPI implementations it actually breaks in various interesting ways. The only reason to force a sync from the embedded controller is to poll CCI while notifications are disabled. Only the ucsi core knows if this is the case and guessing based on the current command is suboptimal, i.e. leading to the following spurious assertion splat: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 76 at drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c:1388 ucsi_reset_ppm+0x1b4/0x1c0 [typec_ucsi] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 76 Comm: kworker/3:0 Not tainted 6.12.11-200.fc41.x86_64 #1 Hardware name: LENOVO 21D0/LNVNB161216, BIOS J6CN45WW 03/17/2023 Workqueue: events_long ucsi_init_work [typec_ucsi] RIP: 0010:ucsi_reset_ppm+0x1b4/0x1c0 [typec_ucsi] Call Trace: <TASK> ucsi_init_work+0x3c/0xac0 [typec_ucsi] process_one_work+0x179/0x330 worker_thread+0x252/0x390 kthread+0xd2/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> Thus introduce a ->poll_cci() method that works like ->read_cci() with an additional forced sync and document that this should be used when polling with notifications disabled. For all other backends that presumably don't have this issue use the same implementation for both methods.
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>= 6.12.5, < 6.12.19>= 6.13, < 6.13.7= 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 · scoped6.12.196.13.7
6.12.19 (for 6.12.x), 6.13.7 (for 6.13.x), or 6.14.1+ (for 6.14.x)
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.12.19 or later for systems running 6.12.x
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.13.7 or later for systems running 6.13.x
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.14.1 or later for systems running 6.14.x
- After kernel upgrade, verify the ucsi driver loads correctly: `modinfo typec_ucsi`
- Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- Check dmesg for any remaining ucsi-related warnings: `dmesg | grep -i ucsi`
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-2025-21902 — 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-2025-21902 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