Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2025-21908
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: NFS: fix nfs_release_folio() to not deadlock via kcompactd writeback Add PF_KCOMPACTD flag and current_is_kcompactd() helper to check for it so nfs_release_folio() can skip calling nfs_wb_folio() from kcompactd. Otherwise NFS can deadlock waiting for kcompactd enduced writeback which recurses back to NFS (which triggers writeback to NFSD via NFS loopback mount on the same host, NFSD blocks waiting for XFS's call to __filemap_get_folio): 6070.550357] INFO: task kcompactd0:58 blocked for more than 4435 seconds. {--- [58] "kcompactd0" [<0>] folio_wait_bit+0xe8/0x200 [<0>] folio_wait_writeback+0x2b/0x80 [<0>] nfs_wb_folio+0x80/0x1b0 [nfs] [<0>] nfs_release_folio+0x68/0x130 [nfs] [<0>] split_huge_page_to_list_to_order+0x362/0x840 [<0>] migrate_pages_batch+0x43d/0xb90 [<0>] migrate_pages_sync+0x9a/0x240 [<0>] migrate_pages+0x93c/0x9f0 [<0>] compact_zone+0x8e2/0x1030 [<0>] compact_node+0xdb/0x120 [<0>] kcompactd+0x121/0x2e0 [<0>] kthread+0xcf/0x100 [<0>] ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40 [<0>] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 ---} [[email protected]: fix build]
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 analysisShared resources are accessed without correct locking, so concurrent operations interleave into inconsistent — and sometimes exploitable — states, or deadlock the service outright. These bugs are subtle and timing-dependent. The fix is correct, consistent locking or atomic operations around every shared resource.
General guidance for the improper locking 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
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 6.3, < 6.6.83>= 6.7, < 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 · scoped6.6.836.12.196.13.7
Upgrade to 6.6.83 (if on 6.3-6.6 branch), 6.12.19 (if on 6.7-6.12 branch), 6.13.7 (if on 6.13 branch), or 6.14.1+ (if on 6.14 branch)
- Identify your current Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- For distributions using stable kernel repositories, upgrade to the first fixed version in your branch: If running 6.3.x-6.6.x, upgrade to 6.6.83 or later; If running 6.7.x-6.12.x, upgrade to 6.12.19 or later; If running 6.13.x, upgrade to 6.13.7 or later; If running 6.14.x, upgrade to 6.14.1 or later
- On Debian/Ubuntu: `sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade` or install specific kernel package
- On RHEL/CentOS: `sudo yum update kernel` or `sudo dnf update kernel`
- On Fedora: `sudo dnf update kernel-core`
- Reboot the system to load the new kernel: `sudo systemctl reboot`
- Verify the new kernel version is loaded post-reboot with `uname -r` and confirm the version is >= the fixed version for your branch
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-2025-21908 — 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-2025-21908 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