CVE-2025-37960
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: memblock: Accept allocated memory before use in memblock_double_array() When increasing the array size in memblock_double_array() and the slab is not yet available, a call to memblock_find_in_range() is used to reserve/allocate memory. However, the range returned may not have been accepted, which can result in a crash when booting an SNP guest: RIP: 0010:memcpy_orig+0x68/0x130 Code: ... RSP: 0000:ffffffff9cc03ce8 EFLAGS: 00010006 RAX: ff11001ff83e5000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: fffffffffffff000 RDX: 0000000000000bc0 RSI: ffffffff9dba8860 RDI: ff11001ff83e5c00 RBP: 0000000000002000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000002000 R10: 000000207fffe000 R11: 0000040000000000 R12: ffffffff9d06ef78 R13: ff11001ff83e5000 R14: ffffffff9dba7c60 R15: 0000000000000c00 memblock_double_array+0xff/0x310 memblock_add_range+0x1fb/0x2f0 memblock_reserve+0x4f/0xa0 memblock_alloc_range_nid+0xac/0x130 memblock_alloc_internal+0x53/0xc0 memblock_alloc_try_nid+0x3d/0xa0 swiotlb_init_remap+0x149/0x2f0 mem_init+0xb/0xb0 mm_core_init+0x8f/0x350 start_kernel+0x17e/0x5d0 x86_64_start_reservations+0x14/0x30 x86_64_start_kernel+0x92/0xa0 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0x194/0x19b Mitigate this by calling accept_memory() on the memory range returned before the slab is available. Prior to v6.12, the accept_memory() interface used a 'start' and 'end' parameter instead of 'start' and 'size', therefore the accept_memory() call must be adjusted to specify 'start + size' for 'end' when applying to kernels prior to v6.12.
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>= 6.5, < 6.6.92>= 6.7, < 6.12.29>= 6.13, < 6.14.7= 6.15CVSS 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 · scoped6.6.926.12.296.14.7
6.6.92 / 6.12.29 / 6.14.7 / 6.15.1 or later (depending on your stable branch)
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.6.92 or later if using the 6.6.y stable branch
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 6.12.29 or later if using the 6.12.y stable branch
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 6.14.7 or later if using the 6.14.y stable branch
- Alternatively, upgrade to version 6.15.1 or later if using the 6.15.y stable branch
- Verify the running kernel version after reboot using 'uname -r' to confirm the fix is applied
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-2025-37960 — 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-2025-37960 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