Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2025-38689
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: x86/fpu: Fix NULL dereference in avx512_status() Problem ------- With CONFIG_X86_DEBUG_FPU enabled, reading /proc/[kthread]/arch_status causes a warning and a NULL pointer dereference. This is because the AVX-512 timestamp code uses x86_task_fpu() but doesn't check it for NULL. CONFIG_X86_DEBUG_FPU addles that function for kernel threads (PF_KTHREAD specifically), making it return NULL. The point of the warning was to ensure that kernel threads only access task->fpu after going through kernel_fpu_begin()/_end(). Note: all kernel tasks exposed in /proc have a valid task->fpu. Solution -------- One option is to silence the warning and check for NULL from x86_task_fpu(). However, that warning is fairly fresh and seems like a defense against misuse of the FPU state in kernel threads. Instead, stop outputting AVX-512_elapsed_ms for kernel threads altogether. The data was garbage anyway because avx512_timestamp is only updated for user threads, not kernel threads. If anyone ever wants to track kernel thread AVX-512 use, they can come back later and do it properly, separate from this bug fix. [ dhansen: mostly rewrite changelog ]
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 code follows a pointer that is null, crashing the process. An attacker who can reliably trigger it turns the crash into a denial of service. The fix is checking for null before use and handling the failure path gracefully.
General guidance for the null pointer dereference 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
>= 6.16, < 6.16.2= 6.17CVSS 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 · scoped6.16.2
Linux Kernel 6.16.2 or later for 6.16.x branch; Linux Kernel 6.18 or later for 6.17
- Check current kernel version with: uname -r
- For kernels >= 6.16 and < 6.16.2: Upgrade to kernel version 6.16.2 or later (e.g., 6.16.3, 6.16.4, etc.)
- For kernel version 6.17: Upgrade to kernel version 6.18 or later, or apply the vendor patch from commit 2ca887e81095b99d890a8878841f36f4920181e6
- Reboot the system after applying the kernel update
- Verify the fix by reading /proc/[kthread]/arch_status for a kernel thread (requires CONFIG_X86_DEBUG_FPU enabled to trigger the original 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-2025-38689 — 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-2025-38689 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