Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2025-21986
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: switchdev: Convert blocking notification chain to a raw one A blocking notification chain uses a read-write semaphore to protect the integrity of the chain. The semaphore is acquired for writing when adding / removing notifiers to / from the chain and acquired for reading when traversing the chain and informing notifiers about an event. In case of the blocking switchdev notification chain, recursive notifications are possible which leads to the semaphore being acquired twice for reading and to lockdep warnings being generated [1]. Specifically, this can happen when the bridge driver processes a SWITCHDEV_BRPORT_UNOFFLOADED event which causes it to emit notifications about deferred events when calling switchdev_deferred_process(). Fix this by converting the notification chain to a raw notification chain in a similar fashion to the netdev notification chain. Protect the chain using the RTNL mutex by acquiring it when modifying the chain. Events are always informed under the RTNL mutex, but add an assertion in call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers() to make sure this is not violated in the future. Maintain the "blocking" prefix as events are always emitted from process context and listeners are allowed to block. [1]: WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.14.0-rc4-custom-g079270089484 #1 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- ip/52731 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff850918d8 ((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff850918d8 ((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem); lock((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 3 locks held by ip/52731: #0: ffffffff84f795b0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnl_newlink+0x727/0x1dc0 #1: ffffffff8731f628 (&net->rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnl_newlink+0x790/0x1dc0 #2: ffffffff850918d8 ((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0 stack backtrace: ... ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_mark_lock+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_switchdev_port_attr_set_deferred+0x10/0x10 blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0 switchdev_port_attr_notify.constprop.0+0xb3/0x1b0 ? __pfx_switchdev_port_attr_notify.constprop.0+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0x94/0xe0 ? switchdev_deferred_process+0x11a/0x340 switchdev_port_attr_set_deferred+0x27/0xd0 switchdev_deferred_process+0x164/0x340 br_switchdev_port_unoffload+0xc8/0x100 [bridge] br_switchdev_blocking_event+0x29f/0x580 [bridge] notifier_call_chain+0xa2/0x440 blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6e/0xa0 switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload+0xde/0x1a0 ...
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
>= 6.1.80, < 6.1.132>= 6.6.19, < 6.6.84>= 6.7.7, < 6.8>= 6.8.1, < 6.12.20>= 6.13, < 6.13.8= 6.8= 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 · scoped6.1.1326.6.846.8
6.1.132+ / 6.6.84+ / 6.8+ / 6.12.20+
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to a fixed release: 6.1.132 or later for 6.1.x kernels, 6.6.84 or later for 6.6.x kernels, 6.8 or later for 6.7.x/6.8.x kernels, or 6.12.20 or later for 6.12.x kernels
- After kernel upgrade, verify the running kernel version with 'uname -r' to confirm the fix is applied
- Reboot the system if necessary to load the fixed kernel
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-2025-21986 — 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-2025-21986 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