Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2025-38338
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: fs/nfs/read: fix double-unlock bug in nfs_return_empty_folio() Sometimes, when a file was read while it was being truncated by another NFS client, the kernel could deadlock because folio_unlock() was called twice, and the second call would XOR back the `PG_locked` flag. Most of the time (depending on the timing of the truncation), nobody notices the problem because folio_unlock() gets called three times, which flips `PG_locked` back off: 1. vfs_read, nfs_read_folio, ... nfs_read_add_folio, nfs_return_empty_folio 2. vfs_read, nfs_read_folio, ... netfs_read_collection, netfs_unlock_abandoned_read_pages 3. vfs_read, ... nfs_do_read_folio, nfs_read_add_folio, nfs_return_empty_folio The problem is that nfs_read_add_folio() is not supposed to unlock the folio if fscache is enabled, and a nfs_netfs_folio_unlock() check is missing in nfs_return_empty_folio(). Rarely this leads to a warning in netfs_read_collection(): ------------[ cut here ]------------ R=0000031c: folio 10 is not locked WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 29 at fs/netfs/read_collect.c:133 netfs_read_collection+0x7c0/0xf00 [...] Workqueue: events_unbound netfs_read_collection_worker RIP: 0010:netfs_read_collection+0x7c0/0xf00 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> netfs_read_collection_worker+0x67/0x80 process_one_work+0x12e/0x2c0 worker_thread+0x295/0x3a0 Most of the time, however, processes just get stuck forever in folio_wait_bit_common(), waiting for `PG_locked` to disappear, which never happens because nobody is really holding the folio lock.
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 analysisThe same block of memory is freed twice, corrupting the allocator's bookkeeping in ways an attacker can shape toward code execution. It usually stems from tangled ownership of a pointer. The fix is clear, single ownership of each allocation and clearing pointers once they are freed.
General guidance for the double free 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
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 6.4, < 6.6.95>= 6.7, < 6.12.35>= 6.13, < 6.15.4CVSS 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 · scoped6.6.956.12.356.15.4
6.6.95 (for 6.4-6.6.x), 6.12.35 (for 6.7-6.12.x), or 6.15.4 (for 6.13-6.15.x)
- Identify the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which version range your current kernel falls into (6.4-6.6.x, 6.7-6.12.x, or 6.13-6.15.x)
- Upgrade to the fixed release for your version branch: 6.6.95 or later for 6.4-6.6.x kernels, 6.12.35 or later for 6.7-6.12.x kernels, or 6.15.4 or later for 6.13-6.15.x kernels
- Reboot the system to apply the new kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the nfs_return_empty_folio function no longer has the double-unlock issue
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-2025-38338 — 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-2025-38338 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