CVE-2025-22113
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: ext4: avoid journaling sb update on error if journal is destroying Presently we always BUG_ON if trying to start a transaction on a journal marked with JBD2_UNMOUNT, since this should never happen. However, while ltp running stress tests, it was observed that in case of some error handling paths, it is possible for update_super_work to start a transaction after the journal is destroyed eg: (umount) ext4_kill_sb kill_block_super generic_shutdown_super sync_filesystem /* commits all txns */ evict_inodes /* might start a new txn */ ext4_put_super flush_work(&sbi->s_sb_upd_work) /* flush the workqueue */ jbd2_journal_destroy journal_kill_thread journal->j_flags |= JBD2_UNMOUNT; jbd2_journal_commit_transaction jbd2_journal_get_descriptor_buffer jbd2_journal_bmap ext4_journal_bmap ext4_map_blocks ... ext4_inode_error ext4_handle_error schedule_work(&sbi->s_sb_upd_work) /* work queue kicks in */ update_super_work jbd2_journal_start start_this_handle BUG_ON(journal->j_flags & JBD2_UNMOUNT) Hence, introduce a new mount flag to indicate journal is destroying and only do a journaled (and deferred) update of sb if this flag is not set. Otherwise, just fallback to an un-journaled commit. Further, in the journal destroy path, we have the following sequence: 1. Set mount flag indicating journal is destroying 2. force a commit and wait for it 3. flush pending sb updates This sequence is important as it ensures that, after this point, there is no sb update that might be journaled so it is safe to update the sb outside the journal. (To avoid race discussed in 2d01ddc86606) Also, we don't need a similar check in ext4_grp_locked_error since it is only called from mballoc and AFAICT it would be always valid to schedule work here.
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>= 5.11.1, < 6.12.46>= 6.13, < 6.14.2= 5.11CVSS 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 · scoped6.12.466.14.2
Linux Kernel 6.12.46 or later, or 6.14.2 or later
- Identify the current running Linux kernel version using 'uname -r'
- Verify the kernel version falls within the affected range: >= 5.11.1 and < 6.12.46, OR >= 6.13 and < 6.14.2, OR exactly 5.11
- Schedule a maintenance window for kernel upgrade
- Upgrade to Linux kernel 6.12.46 or later (recommended for stable branch)
- Alternatively, upgrade to Linux kernel 6.14.2 or later (latest stable)
- Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version with 'uname -r' and confirming it is >= 6.12.46 or >= 6.14.2
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-2025-22113 — 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-2025-22113 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