CVE-2025-39894
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: netfilter: br_netfilter: do not check confirmed bit in br_nf_local_in() after confirm When send a broadcast packet to a tap device, which was added to a bridge, br_nf_local_in() is called to confirm the conntrack. If another conntrack with the same hash value is added to the hash table, which can be triggered by a normal packet to a non-bridge device, the below warning may happen. ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 96 at net/bridge/br_netfilter_hooks.c:632 br_nf_local_in+0x168/0x200 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 96 Comm: tap_send Not tainted 6.17.0-rc2-dirty #44 PREEMPT(voluntary) RIP: 0010:br_nf_local_in+0x168/0x200 Call Trace: <TASK> nf_hook_slow+0x3e/0xf0 br_pass_frame_up+0x103/0x180 br_handle_frame_finish+0x2de/0x5b0 br_nf_hook_thresh+0xc0/0x120 br_nf_pre_routing_finish+0x168/0x3a0 br_nf_pre_routing+0x237/0x5e0 br_handle_frame+0x1ec/0x3c0 __netif_receive_skb_core+0x225/0x1210 __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x37/0xa0 netif_receive_skb+0x36/0x160 tun_get_user+0xa54/0x10c0 tun_chr_write_iter+0x65/0xb0 vfs_write+0x305/0x410 ksys_write+0x60/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x260 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- To solve the hash conflict, nf_ct_resolve_clash() try to merge the conntracks, and update skb->_nfct. However, br_nf_local_in() still use the old ct from local variable 'nfct' after confirm(), which leads to this warning. If confirm() does not insert the conntrack entry and return NF_DROP, the warning may also occur. There is no need to reserve the WARN_ON_ONCE, just remove it.
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>= 5.15.151, < 5.15.192>= 6.1.81, < 6.1.151>= 6.6.21, < 6.6.105>= 6.7.9, < 6.8>= 6.8.1, < 6.12.46>= 6.13, < 6.16.6= 6.8= 6.17= 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 · scoped5.15.1926.1.1516.6.105
Linux kernel 5.15.192+, 6.1.151+, 6.6.105+, or 6.8+ (or Debian kernel package 5.15.192-1+ for Debian 11)
- 1. Check the current running kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. For Debian 11 (Bullseye), update package lists with `apt update`
- 3. Upgrade the kernel package: `apt install linux-image-<version>` where version is a fixed release (e.g., 5.15.192+, 6.1.151+, 6.6.105+, or 6.8+)
- 4. Update GRUB configuration if necessary: `update-grub`
- 5. Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel: `reboot`
- 6. After reboot, verify the new kernel version is running with `uname -r`
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-2025-39894 — 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-2025-39894 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