CVE-2025-38451
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: md/md-bitmap: fix GPF in bitmap_get_stats() The commit message of commit 6ec1f0239485 ("md/md-bitmap: fix stats collection for external bitmaps") states: Remove the external bitmap check as the statistics should be available regardless of bitmap storage location. Return -EINVAL only for invalid bitmap with no storage (neither in superblock nor in external file). But, the code does not adhere to the above, as it does only check for a valid super-block for "internal" bitmaps. Hence, we observe: Oops: GPF, probably for non-canonical address 0x1cd66f1f40000028 RIP: 0010:bitmap_get_stats+0x45/0xd0 Call Trace: seq_read_iter+0x2b9/0x46a seq_read+0x12f/0x180 proc_reg_read+0x57/0xb0 vfs_read+0xf6/0x380 ksys_read+0x6d/0xf0 do_syscall_64+0x8c/0x1b0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e We fix this by checking the existence of a super-block for both the internal and external case.
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>= 6.1.135, < 6.1.146>= 6.6.88, < 6.6.99>= 6.12.25, < 6.12.39>= 6.14.4, < 6.15>= 6.15.1, < 6.15.7= 6.15= 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 · scoped6.1.1466.6.996.12.39
Linux Kernel 6.1.146 / 6.6.99 / 6.12.39 / 6.15 (depending on current branch)
- 1. Identify the current running kernel version using 'uname -r'
- 2. Determine which kernel branch you are currently on (e.g., 6.1.x, 6.6.x, 6.12.x, or 6.14.x)
- 3. Schedule a maintenance window for the kernel upgrade
- 4. Upgrade the Linux kernel to version 6.1.146 or higher (if on 6.1 branch), 6.6.99 or higher (if on 6.6 branch), 6.12.39 or higher (if on 6.12 branch), or 6.15 or higher (if on 6.14 branch)
- 5. Use your distribution's package manager to install the updated kernel (e.g., 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade' for Debian)
- 6. Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- 7. Verify the fix by running 'uname -r' and confirming the version is at or above the fixed version 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-2025-38451 — 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-2025-38451 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