CVE-2025-37807
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: bpf: Fix kmemleak warning for percpu hashmap Vlad Poenaru reported the following kmemleak issue: unreferenced object 0x606fd7c44ac8 (size 32): backtrace (crc 0): pcpu_alloc_noprof+0x730/0xeb0 bpf_map_alloc_percpu+0x69/0xc0 prealloc_init+0x9d/0x1b0 htab_map_alloc+0x363/0x510 map_create+0x215/0x3a0 __sys_bpf+0x16b/0x3e0 __x64_sys_bpf+0x18/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x7b/0x150 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 Further investigation shows the reason is due to not 8-byte aligned store of percpu pointer in htab_elem_set_ptr(): *(void __percpu **)(l->key + key_size) = pptr; Note that the whole htab_elem alignment is 8 (for x86_64). If the key_size is 4, that means pptr is stored in a location which is 4 byte aligned but not 8 byte aligned. In mm/kmemleak.c, scan_block() scans the memory based on 8 byte stride, so it won't detect above pptr, hence reporting the memory leak. In htab_map_alloc(), we already have htab->elem_size = sizeof(struct htab_elem) + round_up(htab->map.key_size, 8); if (percpu) htab->elem_size += sizeof(void *); else htab->elem_size += round_up(htab->map.value_size, 8); So storing pptr with 8-byte alignment won't cause any problem and can fix kmemleak too. The issue can be reproduced with bpf selftest as well: 1. Enable CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK config 2. Add a getchar() before skel destroy in test_hash_map() in prog_tests/for_each.c. The purpose is to keep map available so kmemleak can be detected. 3. run './test_progs -t for_each/hash_map &' and a kmemleak should be reported.
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 analysisAllocated memory is never released on some path, so a long-running service or a repeatedly triggered request steadily consumes memory until performance degrades or the process crashes. Attackers exploit it by simply driving the leaking path. Remediation is pairing every allocation with a release and using ownership patterns or tooling to catch what leaks.
General guidance for the memory leak 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< 6.12.26>= 6.13, < 6.14.5CVSS 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 · scoped6.12.266.14.5
Linux Kernel 6.12.26+ or 6.14.5+ (depending on your current branch)
- 1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version`
- 2. Check if the current kernel version is affected: < 6.12.26 OR (>= 6.13 AND < 6.14.5)
- 3. If affected, upgrade the kernel to version 6.12.26 or later for the 6.12.x stable branch
- 4. Alternatively, for systems running 6.13.x or 6.14.x, upgrade to kernel version 6.14.5 or later
- 5. After kernel upgrade, reboot the system to apply the new kernel
- 6. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version matches a fixed release
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-2025-37807 — 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-2025-37807 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