CVE-2025-38016
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: HID: bpf: abort dispatch if device destroyed The current HID bpf implementation assumes no output report/request will go through it after hid_bpf_destroy_device() has been called. This leads to a bug that unplugging certain types of HID devices causes a cleaned- up SRCU to be accessed. The bug was previously a hidden failure until a recent x86 percpu change [1] made it access not-present pages. The bug will be triggered if the conditions below are met: A) a device under the driver has some LEDs on B) hid_ll_driver->request() is uninplemented (e.g., logitech-djreceiver) If condition A is met, hidinput_led_worker() is always scheduled *after* hid_bpf_destroy_device(). hid_destroy_device ` hid_bpf_destroy_device ` cleanup_srcu_struct(&hdev->bpf.srcu) ` hid_remove_device ` ... ` led_classdev_unregister ` led_trigger_set(led_cdev, NULL) ` led_set_brightness(led_cdev, LED_OFF) ` ... ` input_inject_event ` input_event_dispose ` hidinput_input_event ` schedule_work(&hid->led_work) [hidinput_led_worker] This is fine when condition B is not met, where hidinput_led_worker() calls hid_ll_driver->request(). This is the case for most HID drivers, which implement it or use the generic one from usbhid. The driver itself or an underlying driver will then abort processing the request. Otherwise, hidinput_led_worker() tries hid_hw_output_report() and leads to the bug. hidinput_led_worker ` hid_hw_output_report ` dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report ` srcu_read_lock(&hdev->bpf.srcu) ` srcu_read_unlock(&hdev->bpf.srcu, idx) The bug has existed since the introduction [2] of dispatch_hid_bpf_output_report(). However, the same bug also exists in dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests(), and I've reproduced (no visible effect because of the lack of [1], but confirmed bpf.destroyed == 1) the bug against the commit (i.e., the Fixes:) introducing the function. This is because hidinput_led_worker() falls back to hid_hw_raw_request() when hid_ll_driver->output_report() is uninplemented (e.g., logitech- djreceiver). hidinput_led_worker ` hid_hw_output_report: -ENOSYS ` hid_hw_raw_request ` dispatch_hid_bpf_raw_requests ` srcu_read_lock(&hdev->bpf.srcu) ` srcu_read_unlock(&hdev->bpf.srcu, idx) Fix the issue by returning early in the two mentioned functions if hid_bpf has been marked as destroyed. Though dispatch_hid_bpf_device_event() handles input events, and there is no evidence that it may be called after the destruction, the same check, as a safety net, is also added to it to maintain the consistency among all dispatch functions. The impact of the bug on other architectures is unclear. Even if it acts as a hidden failure, this is still dangerous because it corrupts whatever is on the address calculated by SRCU. Thus, CC'ing the stable list. [1]: commit 9d7de2aa8b41 ("x86/percpu/64: Use relative percpu offsets") [2]: commit 9286675a2aed ("HID: bpf: add HID-BPF hooks for hid_hw_output_report")
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>= 6.11, < 6.12.30>= 6.13, < 6.14.8= 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 · scoped6.12.306.14.8
Upgrade to kernel 6.12.30+, 6.14.8+, or 6.16+ (depending on current branch)
- Identify the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which upgrade path applies: for 6.11.x-6.12.x upgrade to 6.12.30 or later; for 6.13.x-6.14.x upgrade to 6.14.8 or later; for 6.15.x upgrade to 6.16 or later
- Update the kernel package via distribution package manager (e.g., `apt update && apt install linux-image-<version>` for Debian/Ubuntu, `yum update kernel` for RHEL/CentOS, or `zypper update kernel-default` for SUSE)
- Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the vulnerability is resolved
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-2025-38016 — 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-2025-38016 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