CVE-2025-38723
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: LoongArch: BPF: Fix jump offset calculation in tailcall The extra pass of bpf_int_jit_compile() skips JIT context initialization which essentially skips offset calculation leaving out_offset = -1, so the jmp_offset in emit_bpf_tail_call is calculated by "#define jmp_offset (out_offset - (cur_offset))" is a negative number, which is wrong. The final generated assembly are as follow. 54: bgeu $a2, $t1, -8 # 0x0000004c 58: addi.d $a6, $s5, -1 5c: bltz $a6, -16 # 0x0000004c 60: alsl.d $t2, $a2, $a1, 0x3 64: ld.d $t2, $t2, 264 68: beq $t2, $zero, -28 # 0x0000004c Before apply this patch, the follow test case will reveal soft lock issues. cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ ./test_progs --allow=tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_1 dmesg: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [test_progs:25056]
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, < 6.1.149>= 6.2, < 6.6.103>= 6.7, < 6.12.43>= 6.13, < 6.15.11>= 6.16, < 6.16.2= 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 · scoped6.1.1496.6.1036.12.43
Linux kernel 6.1.149+, 6.6.103+, 6.12.43+, or 6.15.11+ depending on current branch; Debian 11.0 receives kernel updates via vendor patch
- Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using `uname -r`
- Determine which affected kernel branch (6.1.x, 6.2.x, 6.7.x, or 6.13.x) the system is running
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to a version that includes the fix: for 6.1.x upgrade to 6.1.149 or later; for 6.2.x upgrade to 6.6.103 or later (note: 6.2 is EOL, consider moving to 6.6 LTS); for 6.7.x-6.11.x upgrade to 6.12.43 or later; for 6.13.x-6.14.x upgrade to 6.15.11 or later
- On Debian 11.0 systems, apply vendor security updates to receive the patched kernel
- Reboot the system into the updated kernel
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the patch commit (17c010fe45def335fe03a0718935416b04c7f349) is included in the changelog
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-2025-38723 — 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-2025-38723 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