CVE-2025-38280
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: Avoid __bpf_prog_ret0_warn when jit fails syzkaller reported an issue: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 217 at kernel/bpf/core.c:2357 __bpf_prog_ret0_warn+0xa/0x20 kernel/bpf/core.c:2357 Modules linked in: CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 217 Comm: kworker/u32:6 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc4-syzkaller-00040-g8bac8898fe39 RIP: 0010:__bpf_prog_ret0_warn+0xa/0x20 kernel/bpf/core.c:2357 Call Trace: <TASK> bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:1316 [inline] __bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:718 [inline] bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:725 [inline] cls_bpf_classify+0x74a/0x1110 net/sched/cls_bpf.c:105 ... When creating bpf program, 'fp->jit_requested' depends on bpf_jit_enable. This issue is triggered because of CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is not set and bpf_jit_enable is set to 1, causing the arch to attempt JIT the prog, but jit failed due to FAULT_INJECTION. As a result, incorrectly treats the program as valid, when the program runs it calls `__bpf_prog_ret0_warn` and triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE(1).
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>= 4.9.190, < 4.10>= 4.14.140, < 4.15>= 4.16, < 5.15.186>= 5.16, < 6.1.142>= 6.2, < 6.6.94>= 6.7, < 6.12.34>= 6.13, < 6.15.3= 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped4.104.155.15.186
Kernel 6.1.142+ (for 6.1.y branch), 5.15.186+ (for 5.15.y branch), or respective patched version in 4.9.y/4.14.y branches
- Identify the current kernel version using `uname -r`
- Consult your distribution's package manager to find available kernel packages that include the fix (6.1.142+, 5.15.186+, or newer stable branches)
- Upgrade the kernel package using the distribution's package manager (e.g., `apt-get update && apt-get install linux-image-<version>` for Debian/Ubuntu, or `yum/dnf update kernel` for RHEL-based systems)
- Reboot the system to load the patched kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version with `uname -r` and confirming it is >= 6.1.142 or >= 5.15.186 as appropriate for your branch
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-2025-38280 — 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-2025-38280 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