CVE-2025-38119
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: scsi: core: ufs: Fix a hang in the error handler ufshcd_err_handling_prepare() calls ufshcd_rpm_get_sync(). The latter function can only succeed if UFSHCD_EH_IN_PROGRESS is not set because resuming involves submitting a SCSI command and ufshcd_queuecommand() returns SCSI_MLQUEUE_HOST_BUSY if UFSHCD_EH_IN_PROGRESS is set. Fix this hang by setting UFSHCD_EH_IN_PROGRESS after ufshcd_rpm_get_sync() has been called instead of before. Backtrace: __switch_to+0x174/0x338 __schedule+0x600/0x9e4 schedule+0x7c/0xe8 schedule_timeout+0xa4/0x1c8 io_schedule_timeout+0x48/0x70 wait_for_common_io+0xa8/0x160 //waiting on START_STOP wait_for_completion_io_timeout+0x10/0x20 blk_execute_rq+0xe4/0x1e4 scsi_execute_cmd+0x108/0x244 ufshcd_set_dev_pwr_mode+0xe8/0x250 __ufshcd_wl_resume+0x94/0x354 ufshcd_wl_runtime_resume+0x3c/0x174 scsi_runtime_resume+0x64/0xa4 rpm_resume+0x15c/0xa1c __pm_runtime_resume+0x4c/0x90 // Runtime resume ongoing ufshcd_err_handler+0x1a0/0xd08 process_one_work+0x174/0x808 worker_thread+0x15c/0x490 kthread+0xf4/0x1ec ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 [ bvanassche: rewrote patch description ]
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>= 3.12, < 5.15.186>= 5.16, < 6.1.142>= 6.2, < 6.6.94>= 6.7, < 6.12.34>= 6.13, < 6.15.3= 6.16= 11.0CVSS 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 · scoped5.15.1866.1.1426.6.94
Linux Kernel 5.15.186 / 6.1.142 / 6.6.94 / 6.12.34 (or Debian 12 with kernel 6.12.34+)
- Identify the current running kernel version with `uname -r`
- For Debian 11 (Bullseye), upgrade the kernel package to a version >= 6.12.34 (or >= 6.6.94 if staying on 6.x, >= 6.1.142 if staying on 6.1.x, or >= 5.15.186 if staying on 5.15.x)
- Update package lists: `apt update`
- Install the new kernel: `apt install linux-image-<version>`
- Reboot the system 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-2025-38119 — 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-2025-38119 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